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

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Advocate and doctoral student Syamsul Jahidin has filed a material judicial review petition of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police to the Constitutional Court (MK). He challenges Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law. The preliminary hearing for case No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, chaired by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, took place in the panel courtroom on Tuesday, July 29, 2025.

Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law reads, “Members of the Indonesian National Police may occupy positions outside the police force after resigning or retiring from police service.” The elucidation of the provision further states, “The term ‘positions outside the police force’ refers to posts unrelated to police duties or not based on assignments by the Chief of Police.”

The Petitioner contended that the provision violates Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. He argued that, in practice, several active police officers have been appointed to civil posts outside the Police institutional structure without first resigning or retiring. These include roles such as chairperson of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), secretary-general of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, head of the National Narcotics Agency (BNN), deputy head of the National Cyber and Encryption Agency (BSSN), and head of the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT).

The Petitioner further asserted that the legal provision and its elucidation lack clear limitations, allowing room for interpretation and loopholes that enable active-duty police officers to hold civilian positions without formally relinquishing their status. This, he argued, creates legal inequality and undermines the principles of equal protection under the law and equal opportunity in public governance.

He added that substantively, the provision has established a dual-function for the Police, enabling police officers not only to serve as law enforcement agents but also to take part in administrative, political, and social spheres. He argued that the placement of active police officers in civil posts, especially within legislative institutions, violates the principle of Police neutrality and the separation of powers between executive and legislative branches. It can potentially also lead to conflict of interest and undermine the institution’s independence.

“If active police officers are permitted to hold legislative office, in violation of the existing positive law and the principle of trias politica. Active-duty police officers being legislative members results in a merger of executive and legislative functions, violating the principle of separation of powers. It allows individuals who are tasked with law enforcement to also act as political actors,” the Petitioner explained.

The Petitioner requested the Constitutional Court to declare Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law conditionally unconstitutional, to the extent that it is not interpreted to mean: “Members of the Indonesian National Police may only occupy positions outside the police force after permanently resigning and no longer having the status of active-duty police officers.”

He also requested the Court to declare the Elucidation to Article 28 paragraph (3) conditionally unconstitutional, to the extent that it is not interpreted to mean: “Members of the Indonesian National Police who have not resigned or retired cannot legally occupy civilian posts, including the position of Secretary-General of the Regional Representatives Council (DPD RI).”

Alleged Violation of Constitutional Rights

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioner to clearly outline the constitutional harm suffered as a result of the enforcement of the challenged provision. “Are there any rights that have been impaired by the enforcement of this provision? You must explain the elements of harm, the causal link, and then provide a convincing rationale for your legal challenge under Article 1 paragraph (3),” she emphasized.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman advised the Petitioner to further elaborate on the constitutional injuries caused by the provision. Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat also recommended that the Petitioner streamline the petition, particularly the posita (the legal basis of the petition), noting that “The posita is not clearly structured.”

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. The Court will then schedule a second hearing to examines the revisions to the petition.

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
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.

---