Petitioner Syamsul Jahidin conveying the petition at the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police for case No. 84/PUU-XXIII/2025, Monday (6/2/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2003 on the National Police in the plenary courtroom on Monday, June 2, 2025.

The petition for case No. 84/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Syamsul Jahidin and Ernawati, who challenge the constitutionality of Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Police Law and its elucidation.

Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Police Law reads, “For general interests, officials of the State Police of the Republic of Indonesia may act based on their own consideration in implementing tasks and authorities.” Its elucidation reads, “The term ‘based on their own consideration’ means that in taking any action, members of the State Police of the Republic of Indonesia shall consider the benefits and risks of such action and it shall truly be for public interest.”

At the hearing, advocate Syamsul Jahidin (Petitioner I) explained that the provisions could potentially harm his constitutional rights. He believes the phrase “may act based on their own consideration” could allow for abuse of authority under the pretext of acting for public interest, when in actuality they act for personal or political interests.

“As an advocate who often accompany clients in and out of court, I believe this article is highly subject to misuse among police officers. The phrase is multi-interpretive and has no clear parameters, so police officers can act arbitrarily under the pretext of public interest,” he said before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and members of the panel.

He also argued that the lack of definition of “public interest” in the article has allowed for subjective interpretations. “This phrase should be a legal concept with restrictions and is supervised by objective norms, not be left completely to police officers,” he added.

The Petitioners also highlighted the lack of control mechanism on the implementation of the article. Despite internal monitoring by the Division of Profession and Internal Security (Propam) and external monitoring by the National Police Commission (Kompolnas), in practice, police officers may still use the article to hide behind when they have committed undue force or overstepped their authority.

The Petitioners believe the condition leads to lack of legal certainty, justice, and benefit, with should be protected by the state. In fact, Syamsul has experienced hindrance in obtaining information and legal certainty from the police in West Kalimantan, particularly the Division of Profession and Internal Security of the West Kalimantan Police.

“This article is not only subject to multiple interpretations, but could also potentially be used to silence those who are deemed to have sullied the police’s image or even against political opponents,” Syamsul said.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare the article unconstitutional and not legally binding. 

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh gave the Petitioners some advice. He suggested that the petition be made more systematic and concise, and that foreign terms such as ‘checks and balances’ be italicized.

“Legal standing must also be observed as it is the entry [to the case]. There are many pieces of evidence, but it can be narrated. Make it systematic and concise, keep those with causal relations. If you include so many, you can narrate them to make it easy for the justices to,” he said.

At the end of the session, the panel gave the Petitioners 14 days to revise the petition. They are to submit the revised petition by Monday, June 16, 2025 at 12:00 WIB.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator     : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---