Syamsul Jahidin (Petitioner) delivering the points of his judicial review petition of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police in the panel courtroom, Tuesday (7/29/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police on Tuesday, July 29, 2025 in the panel courtroom. the case No. 116/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Syamsul Jahidin, an advocate.

He specifically challenges Article 40 of the Police Law, which stipulates that “all expenditures required to support the implementation of the duties of the National Police Commission shall be charged to the State Budget (APBN).” He argued that this provision fails to explicitly specify the funding sources and budget mechanisms for the National Police as a whole.

Before the panel of justices chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, he argued that the absence of provisions regulating transparency, accountability, and responsibility in the management of the Police’s budget constitutes a legal vacuum. He asserted that such a gap could lead to legal uncertainty and multiple interpretations.

“The Police Law does not provide clear sources or mechanisms for the Police’s funding. This contradicts Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which mandates that the State Budget must be managed in an open and accountable manner for the greatest prosperity of the people,” he stated.

He further emphasized that given the significant budget allocation for the Police—amounting to Rp126 trillion in 2025—there must be a transparent oversight mechanism in place. “The absence of clear budgetary mechanisms in the Police Law reflects a legal vacuum that potentially weakens public oversight of state finances, including by [myself]. In fact, the Police is one of the largest recipients of the State Budget,” he added.

Syamsul also raised concerns that the normative gap in Article 40 opens the possibility for the Police to obtain funding from sources outside the State Budget, such as private entities or interest groups. “This is dangerous, as it could lead to conflicts of interest, compromise the Police’s neutrality, and open avenues for irregularities and potential corruption,” he warned.

He also noted the lack of publicly accessible financial reports from the Police, suggesting that the institution may be the only state body not subject to systematic financial oversight.

In his petition, he referenced Constitutional Court Decision No. 136/PUU-XXII/2024, which underscores the importance of legal certainty and normative consistency within Indonesia’s legal system. He argued that the enactment of legislation that is inconsistent, unharmonized, and open to conflicting interpretations violates the principles of a state governed by law as enshrined in Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

In conclusion, he requested the Court to declare Article 40 of the Police Law in conflict with Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 23 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and therefore not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih emphasized the importance of demonstrating constitutional harm in a judicial review case. “What actual harm have you suffered due to the enforcement of Article 28 paragraph (3) and its elucidation? Have any of your constitutional rights been impaired?” she inquired.

Justice Enny added that in the absence of demonstrable harm to a personal constitutional right, Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution—being a general principle of the rule of law—cannot serve as a valid basis for the petition.

“You must clearly and specifically explain the constitutional harm experienced. Is there truly a right that has been impaired? Evidence must be presented, and the causal relationship must be made explicit,” she concluded.

At the end of the session, the panel gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition, which must be received by the Registrar’s Office no later than Monday, August 11, 2025 at 12:00 WIB.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fauzan Febriyan
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.

---