The Petitioners’ legal counsel presenting the revised petition at a petition revision hearing for case No. 76/PUU-XXIII/2025 and No. 78/PUU-XXIII/2025. Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — On Wednesday, June 4, 2025, the Constitutional Court held a petition revision hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police. The hearing examined two cases—No. 76/PUU-XXIII/2025 and No. 78/PUU-XXIII/2025—filed by Syamsul Jahidin (and Ernawati in the second case), challenging provisions believed to be unconstitutional.

In case No. 76/PUU-XXIII/2025, Syamsul argued that Article 16 paragraph (1) letter l and paragraph (2) letter c contain ambiguous wording that allows law enforcement personnel to act arbitrarily without clear procedural standards. This, he claimed, opens the door to abuse of power and erodes public trust. He requested the Court to invalidate these provisions.

In case No. 78/PUU-XXIII/2025, Syamsul and Ernawati challenged Article 11 paragraph (2) and its elucidation, arguing that the lack of clarity on the Chief of Police’s term of office creates legal uncertainty. They also pointed to the absence of specific grounds for dismissal by the President during a term of office, potentially undermining checks and balances.

Also read: Potential Criminalization in Police Law Questioned

The Petitioners proposed that any appointment or dismissal of the Chief of Police by the President must be accompanied by clear, legitimate reasons and approved by the House of Representatives. Valid grounds include: (a) the end of the President’s term of office coinciding with the term of the cabinet; (b) dismissal during the same presidential term with DPR’s approval; (c) expiration of the Chief of Police’s term; (d) voluntary resignation; (e) retirement; (f) permanent incapacity; (g) a final and binding criminal conviction; and (h) in the event that the DPR rejects the proposed dismissal, the President may withdraw and resubmit the proposal in the next session.

They also highlighted a concrete example: Ernawati was criminally charged and imprisoned for using the hashtag “#PercumaLaporPolisi,” resulting in the loss of her liberty, job, and ability to communicate freely. This case, they argued, illustrates the repressive potential of the law when procedural safeguards are absent.

The panel hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat alongside Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and Anwar Usman. The Court will proceed to examine the petition further in the upcoming hearings.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

---