Cindy Allyssa delivering the key points of the petition at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Police Law, Wednesday (8/27/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) received another material judicial review petition of Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police and its elucidation against the 1945 Constitution. The provision under review concerns the appointment and dismissal of the National Police Chief (Kapolri).

Article 11 paragraph (2) of the Police Law 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.” Meanwhile, its elucidation reads: “The approval of the House of Representative of the Republic of Indonesia regarding the proposal for the appointment and dismissal of the National Police Chief shall be in accordance with prevailing provisions within the House. The proposal for the dismissal of the National Police Chief shall be submitted by the President along with valid reasons such as the end of the office term of the National Police Chief concerned, based on a request of the person concerned, entry into retirement, permanent incapacity, and a criminal conviction with final and binding legal force. If the House rejects the proposal for dismissal, the President shall withdraw the proposal and may resubmit the request for approval in a subsequent session.”

“However, the grounds for dismissal of the police chief, as referred to in the provision a quo, are not further regulated, or at least not clearly set out in the text of Law No. 11 of 2002,” said Petitioner I Cindy Allyssa at the preliminary hearing for case No. 147/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, August 27, 2025.

Cindy argued that because the elucidation to the norm formulates substantive norms, it creates legal uncertainty, violating the principles of consistency, harmony, and coherence between the body of the law and its elucidation. Moreover, this drafting practice contravenes the legislative drafting techniques mandated under Law No. 12 of 2011 on Lawmaking and its amendments.

She explained that while the elucidation lists legitimate grounds for dismissal—such as the expiration of the term of office, resignation, entry into retirement age, permanent incapacity, or a criminal conviction—the law itself fails to specify when the term of office of the police chief ends. As a result, one of the main grounds for dismissal becomes inapplicable.

Petitioner II Syamsul Jahidin further stated that the enforcement of Article 11 paragraph (2) and its elucidation has infringed upon the Petitioners’ constitutional rights to guarantees, protection, and legal certainty as enshrined in Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. He argued that the inconsistent and ambiguous formulation of the challenged provision, coupled with its problematic implementation, has caused both actual and potential constitutional harm.

“Due to the uncertainty, lack of clarity, and absence of legal certainty in this provision as applied by the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia in carrying out its fundamental duties—namely maintaining public order and security; enforcing the law; and protecting, guiding, and serving the public, including the Petitioners—those constitutional guarantees are not being fulfilled,” he said in his online testimony.

In their petitums, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 11 paragraph (2) of the Police Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as follows: “The proposal for the appointment and dismissal of the Chief of Police shall be submitted by the President to the House of Representatives, accompanied by valid reasons: a. expiration of the Police Chief’s five-year term of office; b. dismissal during the term of office by the President within the relevant period with the approval of the House of Representatives; c. resignation; d. reaching retirement age; e. permanent incapacity; f. a criminal conviction with final and binding legal force.” They also asked the Court to declare the elucidation to Article 11 paragraph (2) unconstitutional and not legally binding.

The case was heard before Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih. Justice Enny reminded the Petitioners that a similar petition concerning the same article had previously been filed and had reached the stage of submission of conclusions by the parties, pending deliberation by the justices in the justice deliberation meeting (RPH) for a final decision. She cautioned that to avoid the principle of ne bis in idem—the prohibition against re-filing a constitutional review on the same provision once the Court has issued a final and binding ruling—the Petitioners must demonstrate a different or new constitutional issue.

“Therefore, the arguments you have presented here must clearly establish the distinct constitutional aspects of this petition,” she advised.

Before adjourning the hearing, Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition, which must be resubmitted no later than September 9 at 12:00 WIB.

Author         : Mimi Kartika
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Tiara Agustina
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.

---