Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the Ruling Hearing of the Decision/Decree of Case No. 78/PUU-XXIII/2025 Material Judicial Review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police, Thursday (7/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) has declared inadmissible the petition of Syamsul Jahidin (Petitioner 1) and Ernawati (Petitioner 2) who are Challenging the constitutionality of Article 11 paragraph (2) and the Elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Polri Law). The ruling hearing for case No. 78/PUU-XXIII/2025 was held in the plenary courtroom of the Court on Thursday, June 3, 2025.
In the legal considerations, read by the Chief Justice Suhartoyo, it was stated that the systematics of the petition had basically been prepared in accordance with the petition format contained in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 10 paragraph (2) letters a and b of PMK 2/2021. However, after the Court examined it, the description of the legal standing of the Petitioners only described the filling of the position and performance of the chief of police (Kapolri) and the concrete cases experienced by Petitioner 2 without being accompanied by a description of its relationship to the norm being petitioned for review. In addition, in the reasons for the petition or posita, although the Petitioners stated the basis for the review, there was no clear and adequate description of the conflict between the norm being petitioned for review and the norm used as the basis for the review in the 1945 NRI Constitution.
Furthermore, the Court's legal considerations stated that the Petitioners' posita mostly cited the Court's legal considerations regarding Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 NRI Constitution. The concrete case experienced by Petitioner 2 and the Petitioner's assessment of the performance of the Chief of Police as mentioned above are not related, whereas the main problem that must be explained is why the norm whose constitutionality is being reviewed is in conflict with the basis for the review.
According to the Court, there is an ambiguity between what is described in the legal standing and reasons for the petition (posita) and what is requested in the petitum. This means that the posita of the Petitioners' petition does not clearly build arguments that are connected to the petitum, so that such posita cannot be said to be a clear posita.
"The Verdict, adjudicates, declares the Petitioners' petition inadmissible," said Chief Justice Suhartoyo reading the verdict.
Also read:
Potential Abuse of Authority by Police Questioned
Strengthening Arguments on Potential Criminalization in Police Law
At the Preliminary Hearing, Thursday, May 22, 2025, the Petitioners stated that term limits are one way of legal control over power, including controlling the power of the Chief of Police. According to the Elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the Police Law, the end of the Chief of Police's term of office is one of the reasons for dismissing the Chief of Police from office. Therefore, it can be ascertained that the Police Law actually uses term limits. However, with no clarity regarding the limit of the Chief of Police's term of office, the provisions of this norm cannot be applied or cause ambiguity in its implementation.
In addition, the Petitioners assessed that the norm being reviewed also created a legal vacuum regarding the President's prerogative to dismiss the Chief of Police during his term of office by the President in the relevant period with the approval of the House of Representatives (DPR). Basically, continued Syamsul, filling the position of Chief of Police is the President's prerogative even with the approval of the DPR as regulated in Article 11 paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2002 in conjunction with Constitutional Court Decision No. 22/PUU-XIII/2015.
Based on the prerogative, the President should be able to use the same prerogative to dismiss the Chief of Police if the performance of the Chief of Police in question is considered less than good. Moreover, the Chief of Police is one of the most strategic positions that has major implications for achieving state goals. However, if we refer to the reasons as regulated in the Elucidation of Article 11 paragraph (2) of the Police Law, then the dismissal of the Chief of Police by the President for the reasons as referred to by the Petitioners cannot be carried out.
In a concrete case, Petitioner 2 has been declared a suspect and/or convict by the Police because of the hashtag #Percuma Lapor Polisi. As a result, Petitioner 2 lost her freedom because she was imprisoned and sentenced to 1.5 years. Petitioner 2 has even lost the right to work and carry out various activities and communicate properly and humanely because she has the status of a suspect. For this reason, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 11 paragraph (2) of the Law to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted, the proposal for the appointment and dismissal of the Chief of Police is submitted by the President to the House of Representatives accompanied by valid reasons, including: a. The end of the term of office of the President of the Republic of Indonesia in one period together with the term of office of cabinet members; b. Dismissed during his term of office by the President in the relevant period with the approval of the House of Representatives; c. The term of office of the Chief of Police in question has ended, d. his own request; e. entering retirement age; f. permanently impeded; g. sentenced to a criminal sentence that has permanent legal force. h. If the House of Representatives rejects the proposal to dismiss the Chief of Police, the President will withdraw his proposal and may resubmit a request for approval to dismiss the Chief of Police at the next session.
Read more:
Decision No. 78/PUU-XXIII/2025
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : N. Rosi
PR : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translator : Donny Yuniarto
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.
Thursday, July 03, 2025 | 12:29 WIB 184