Syamsul Jahidin (Petitioner) delivering the revisions to his judicial review petition of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police for case No. 116/PUU-XXIII/2025, Monday (8/11/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police on Monday, August 11, 2025. The case No. 116/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Syamsul Jahidin, an advocate.

Attending the hearing remotely, Syamsul conveyed the revisions to the petition following the advice of the panel at the preliminary hearing. He highlighted the legal vacuum in the Police Law regarding the Police’s funding sources.

“The Police Law does not explicitly mention funding sources. This could potentially allow for funding outside of the state budget, such as from private entities, cooperation, or donation. This condition is unsafe, as it could allow for intervention or certain interests when the Police, as a state law enforcement instrument, must be neutral, independent, and free from any external influences,” he said.

Syamsul also raised concerns that the lack of provisions on funding sources could lead to conflicts of interest, weakening public and legislative oversight, and reduced transparency and accountability in financial management. This, he argues, is against Article 23 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which mandates that the state budget be managed in an open and accountable manner for the greatest prosperity of the people.

In his petitums, he asks that the Court grant the entire petition and declare Article 40 of the Police Law conditionally constitutional if not interpreted that all funding for the Police and the National Police Commission shall be charged to the state budget. He also asks that the legislature stipulates that the police budgets be managed following the principles of transparency and accountability, and that the decision be mentioned in the state gazette.

Also read: Advocate Challenges Lack of Budget Transparency in Police Law

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.

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.

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.

---