A judicial review hearing on the Police Law to hear the President and the expert/witness for the Petitioners of case No. 19/PUU-XXIII/2025, Thursday (7/17/2025) in the plenary courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) postponed the material judicial review hearing of Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police and its elucidation in case No. 19/PUU-XXIII/2025. The fourth hearing had been scheduled for Thursday, July 17, 2025 but the President/Government did not present a first-echelon official to testify before the Court as required.

“For representatives authorized to give statements before the Court, the minimum requirement is a first-echelon official for statements submitted on behalf of the Government,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the plenary hearing.

The Government appointed a bureau chief from the National Police to present its statement before the Court. However, as this did not meet the required qualifications, the Court postponed the hearing and instructed the Government to prepare a first-echelon official to deliver its statement.

In addition, the Petitioners had not yet prepared experts and witnesses scheduled to appear at this session. Accordingly, the Court rescheduled the hearing to reconvene on Tuesday, July 29 at 10:30 WIB to hear the President’s statement as well as the testimonies of the Petitioner’s experts and witnesses.

For reference, Article 53 of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 stipulates that the president may delegate authority to the minister responsible for legal affairs, to other ministers, and/or to officials of ministerial rank with substitution rights. The designated minister may in turn authorize intermediate high-ranking officials, such as first- or second-echelon officers. Positions held by first-echelon officials typically include chairpersons, secretaries-general, inspector-generals, and directors-general within ministries or government agencies.

Also read:

Judicial Review Filed over National Police Chief's Tenure and Dismissal

Petitioners: Proposal for Appointment and Dismissal of National Police Chief Must Be Accompanied by Valid Reason

House: Police Chief's Term Cannot Be Equated with President's Term

The petition was filed by university students Syukur Destieli Gulo, Christian Adrianus Sihite, and Devita Analisandra. They challenge Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police, which reads: “The proposal for the appointment and dismissal of the National Police Chief shall be submitted by the President to the House of Representatives along with its reasons.” They also object to the elucidation, which reads: “The approval of the House of Representative of Indonesia on the dismissal and the appointment of the National Police Chief shall be in accordance with prevailing provisions of the House. The proposal of dismissal of the National Police Chief shall be submitted by the President along with official reasons such as the end of the office term of the National Police Chief concerned, based on a request of a person concerned, retirement age, permanent incapacity, or a sentence for a criminal offence. If the House refuses the proposal of dismissal, the President shall withdraw the approval and may propose again requesting for an approval for the next session.”

The Petitioners argue that the phrase “along with its reasons” is not further regulated or at least not clearly formulated in the Police Law. They believe the article in question is not only faced with normative issues but has also caused real problems. The office of the national police chief currently occupied by Listyo Sigit Prabowo is invalid, they assert, because he has not been reappointed by the elected president Prabowo Subianto.

The President has the prerogative to appoint strategic positions that have major implications for the achievement of state objectives, including the national police chief. According to Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2002, the national police chief is accountable to the President in accordance with statutory regulations. The Petitioners emphasize that the appointment and dismissal of the national police chief are the president’s prerogatives, and the House’s approval is required as part of checks and balances. Therefore, with the end of the tenure of the president who appointed the national police chief in charge, the tenure of said chief should also end.

The Petitioners petitioned the Court to declare Article 11 paragraph (2) of the Police Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “The proposal for the appointment and dismissal of the National Police Chief shall be submitted by the President to the House of Representatives along with its reasons, such as: the end of the tenure of the President of the Republic of Indonesia in line with the tenure of cabinet members; b. being dismissed by the President during his/her tenure with the approval of the House of Representatives; c. personal request; d. attaining retirement age; e. permanent incapacity; f. being sentenced to a final and legally binding penalty.” They also asked that its elucidation be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
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.

---