Petitioner and legal counsel Syamsul Jahidin delivering his claims at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2003 on the National Police, Wednesday (7/2/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Syamsul Jahidin and Ernawati has filed a material judicial review petition of Article 37 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police against Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution to the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 103/PUU-XXIII/2025 was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.

Article 37 paragraph (2) of the Police Law reads, “National Police Commission as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be established with a Presidential Decree.”

According to the Petitioners, in a rule of law, every duty and power must be strictly limited to ensure that authority remains subject to control. Such limitations are essential to prevent potential abuse of power, including control over the authority and functions of the National Police. However, the contested provisions do not in any way guarantee the establishment of effective legal control and legal certainty regarding the Police’s functional oversight.

“Oversight of the National Police should rightfully be exercised by the National Police Commission (Kompolnas), particularly the functional supervision to safeguard the Police’s professionalism and independence. Yet in practice, the Police Commission merely adds to the state’s burden, functioning merely as a spokesperson or an extension of the Police. As a result, this led to legal uncertainty that undermines effective legal oversight of the Police. Without clear institutional supervisory, there is concern that public confidence in the Indonesian National Police will continue to decline,” Syamsul explained at the hearing on Wednesday, July 2, 2025.

The Petitioners argued that the legal uncertainty and ambiguity in the wording of Article 37 paragraph (2) of the Police Law—which defines the National Police Commission’s role—appear entirely illogical to the public, including the Petitioners, as it positions the Commission as a body that wastes public funds without effectively fulfilling its mandate as a supervisory institution. The Petitioners highlighted that its weak oversight could enable law enforcement officers to act repressively against individuals or groups based merely on suspicion or subjective assumptions, without objective evidence. Such practice contradicts the principle of presumption of innocence guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution and the respect for human rights.

For these reasons, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 37 paragraph (2) of the Police Law unconstitutional and not legally binding and to order the president to dissolve the Police Commission immediately upon the pronouncement of the judgment. 

Constitutional Harm

After the Petitioners presented the main points of their petition, the panel of justices offered several recommendations. Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised them to examine the legislative transcript of the Commission’s establishment, which could strengthen their arguments explaining the grounds of the petition. Additionally, they were encouraged to study the Commission’s position within the institutional hierarchy overseeing the performance of the Police.

“In addition to the Police Commission, there is also political oversight by the House of Representatives, and the chief of police reports directly to the president, where each level of these institutions provides avenues for filing complaints. Therefore, in describing the constitutional harm in this petition, have all these channels been pursued? Convince the Court by elaborating on this in the petition,” Justice Foekh explained.

Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah emphasized the importance of clarifying the Petitioners’ connection to the Police Commission. “For example, whether there has been any report previously filed to the Commission,” he noted.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Suhartoyo urged the Petitioners to concretely demonstrate the constitutional harm they have suffered due to the Commission’s existence. “What evidence shows that the Commission’s existence is of no benefit to you? If the argument is merely that you wish the National Police to function well while at the same time wanting to abolish its oversight body, how should this be justified?” the chief justice asked.

Before adjourning the session, Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise their petition, which is to be submitted by Tuesday, July 15 to the Registrar’s Office. The Court will then schedule the next hearing to hear the revisions to the petition.

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Andhini S. F.
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.

---