The Petitioners’ legal counsel presenting the revised petition at the judicial review hearing of the Indonesian National Police Law, Tuesday (6/17/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (the Police Law) on Tuesday, June 17, 2025. The hearing, held for case No. 84/PUU-XXIII/2025, focused on the revision of the petition.

The petition challenges the constitutionality of Article 18, paragraph (1) of the Police Law and its elucidation. Article 18(1) stipulates that "for public interest, Indonesian National Police officers may act according to their own discretion in carrying out their duties and authorities.” The elucidation of this article adds that such actions must consider benefits and risks and genuinely serve the public interest.

Previously, the petition was filed by two individuals, Syamsul Jahidin and Ernawati. During this hearing, Syamsul informed the panel of the addition of a third Petitioner, Piriada Patrisia Siboro. He also elaborated on the constitutional losses suffered by the Petitioners due to the enforcement of the article.

“On page eight, Petitioner I explains actual, factual, and concrete losses. On page nine, potential losses are also described,” said Syamsul before the panel of justices.

The Petitioners contend that the provision opens a door to potential abuse of authority by police officers. Petitioner I argued that the article allows for overlapping and biased law enforcement, as evidenced by several viral incidents on social media.

Syamsul further explained that in paragraph 30 of the revised petition, Petitioner III, who works as an advocate, frequently assists clients both in and out of court. She asserted that the provision could be exploited by rogue officers to act arbitrarily.

Also read:
Potential Abuse of Authority by Police Questioned

At a preliminary hearing on Monday, June 2, 2025, Syamsul Jahidin, acting as Petitioner I and also an advocate, argued that the article and its elucidation could potentially infringe upon his constitutional rights. According to him, the phrase “act according to their own discretion” grants excessive latitude that could justify actions under the guise of public interest, even when such actions might in fact serve personal or political agendas.

The Petitioners also criticized the vague definition of “public interest” in the provision, which, in their view, enables subjective interpretation. “This phrase should be a legal concept with defined boundaries and must be guided by objective norms, not left entirely to officers’ discretion,” Syamsul emphasized.

They also pointed to weak oversight mechanisms in the implementation of the article. While internal oversight from the Professional and Security Division (Propam) and external supervision by the National Police Commission (Kompolnas) exist, in practice, officers can still use the article as a shield to justify excessive or unlawful conduct.

In the Petitioners’ view, this situation undermines legal certainty, justice, and public benefit, principles that should be safeguarded by the state. Syamsul also cited his personal experience in West Kalimantan, where he faced difficulties obtaining information and legal clarity from police institutions, especially from Propam at the West Kalimantan Regional Police.

As such, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 18(1) of the Police Law and its elucidation to be in conflict with the 1945 Constitution and, therefore, not legally binding.

Read more:
Revision of the Petition in Case No. 84/PUU-XXIII/2025

Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina

Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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

 

---