Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih during the Pronouncement Session of the Decision in Case Number 103/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the Judicial Review of Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the Indonesian National Police, Wednesday (30/7/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay
JAKARTA, MKRI – The specific cases faced by the Petitioners, which were later reported by them to the National Police Commission (Kompolnas), do not concern the constitutionality of legal norms. According to the Constitutional Court, such matters fall within the scope of norm implementation, in casu the execution of duties and/or powers of Kompolnas by its commissioners and/or staff. If the allegation of unprofessional handling of complaints by Kompolnas is indeed true, the reasonable approach is not to petition the Court to “dissolve Kompolnas” by declaring Article 37 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2/2002 unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution.
This was the Court’s legal reasoning in Decision Number 103/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the Indonesian National Police (Police Law), read out by Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah. The Constitutional Court’s Pronouncement Session on the petition filed by Syamsul (Petitioner I), Jahidin, and Ernawati (Petitioner II) was held at the Court on Wednesday (30/7/2025).
The Court further explained that the duties and powers of Kompolnas are clearly defined in Article 38 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Police Law. Specifically, Article 38 paragraph (2)(c) states: "to receive input and complaints from the public regarding police performance and convey them to the President." If it is indeed true that Kompolnas has shown unprofessional conduct as alleged by the Petitioners, the more appropriate course of action would be to evaluate and improve its internal operations and institutional governance—issues which are not part of the material content of the Police Law.
Based on this legal reasoning, the Court concluded that the Petitioners’ arguments regarding Kompolnas’ lack of professionalism in handling public complaints do not constitute a matter of constitutional review. Therefore, the Court found their claims legally groundless.
“Verdict: One, declare the petition of Petitioner I inadmissible. Two, reject the petition of Petitioner II and III in its entirety,” stated Chief Justice Suhartoyo in delivering the ruling of Decision Number 103/PUU-XXIII/2025.
Related News:
For context, Petitioners Syamsul Jahidin, Ernawati, and Cindy Alissa submitted the judicial review petition for Case Number 103/PUU-XXIII/2025, challenging Article 37 paragraph (2) of Law Number 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Police Law) against Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 37 paragraph (2) of the Police Law states: “The National Police Commission as referred to in paragraph (1) shall be established by a presidential decree.”
According to the Petitioners, this provision does not ensure legal control or legal certainty over the functional oversight of the police. “Police oversight should be carried out by Kompolnas, especially in terms of supervising police performance to guarantee professionalism and independence. However, in practice, Kompolnas merely acts as a spokesperson and/or an extension of the police. This only adds a burden to the state and leads to legal uncertainty, weakening legal control over the police. Without a clear supervisory function, the National Police may receive even lower public trust,” explained Syamsul during a hearing at the Court on Wednesday (2/7/2025).
The Petitioners emphasized that Kompolnas’ weak oversight could enable police officers to act repressively toward individuals or groups based on suspicion or personal bias, without objective evidence. This contradicts the principle of presumption of innocence guaranteed in the 1945 Constitution and international human rights standards.
Thus, the Petitioners requested that the Court declare Article 37 paragraph (2) of the Police Law unconstitutional and non-binding. They also requested the Court to conditionally declare the provision unconstitutional to the extent that it is not interpreted as: “Kompolnas as referred to in paragraph (1) is established by a presidential decree.”
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : N. Rosi
PR : Andhini S.F.
Translator : Agusweka Poltak Siregar
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 prevails.
Wednesday, July 30, 2025 | 17:00 WIB 434