Arista Hidayatul Rahmansyah attending the petition revision hearing of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police, Tuesday (7/1/2025). Photo by PR/Bay.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing for the judicial review of Article 18 paragraph (1) and its elucidation of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Police Law) on Tuesday, July 1, 2025. The petition for Case No. 93/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Arista Hidayatul Rahmansyah.

The hearing was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, alongside Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Arsul Sani, to examine the revised petition. During the session, Arista conveyed several points of revision, including the Court’s jurisdiction, his legal standing, and adjustments to the petitum.

“The Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court declare Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Police Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is interpreted as follows: paragraph (1) ‘What is meant by “acting according to their own judgment” shall refer to actions taken by a member of the Indonesian National Police with due consideration of the benefits and risks of such action, and genuinely for the public interest,’” stated Arista, a practicing advocate who often provides legal assistance both in and out of court, when reading out the revised petitum.

Also read: Police Officer’s Acts ‘According to Their Own Judgment’ Prone to Abuse

At the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, Arista argued that Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Police Law is highly prone to abuse by certain police officers. He contended that the provision could be misused as a justification for arbitrary actions under the pretext of having complied with legal procedures and the article in question.

“The phrase ‘according to their own judgment’ grants police officers legal grounds to exercise authority as they please. Moreover, this article can be exploited to silence those perceived to threaten the institution’s image or by ruling elites to suppress political opponents,” Arista elaborated during the hearing in the Constitutional Court’s panel courtroom.

He further highlighted the lack of clarification—both in the main text and explanatory section—on what constitutes “public interest,” thereby leaving the term vulnerable to subjective interpretation by officers in the field. This, he argued, contravenes the lex certa principle, which mandates that laws must be clearly worded and formulated, a key tenet of the rule of law as enshrined in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

“Without clear normative limits, officers can claim an act serves the ‘public interest’ based solely on fear, assumptions, or subjective assessments rather than legal parameters that can be objectively verified. This creates a power imbalance between the state and its citizens, where restrictions on civil rights cannot be legally contested due to the absence of clear standards,” he emphasized.

To that end, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Police Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding unless interpreted to mean that “acting according to their own judgment” must involve an assessment of potential benefits and risks, and must truly be in the public interest.

---

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
Public Relations: Raisa Ayudhita Marsaulina

Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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

---