Petitioners and their legal counsel attending the panel hearing on material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on National Police, Tuesday (28/10). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
Jakarta (MKRI) – Advocate Leon Maulana Mirza Pasha (Petitioner I) and private employee Panji (Petitioner II) expanded the scope of their judicial review to include Article 25 paragraph (1) and Article 18 paragraph (1), along with its Elucidation of Law No. 2 of 2002 on National Police (Police Law) against the 1945 Constitution. This was conveyed during the hearing for Case No. 183/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Tuesday, October 28, 2025.
“The object of the judicial review is expanded to include Article 18 paragraph (1) and its Elucidation. The reason being that his addition relates to provisions closely connected to the previously reviewed articles,” Leon stated in the Panel Courtroom.
They also stated that they had detailed the causal link between the contested norms and the 1945 Constitution, as well as the constitutional rights allegedly infringed by those norms. This, they explained, was addressed in their section on legal standing.
“Essentially, the harm results from language in Article 18 paragraph (1) that allows overly broad interpretation, while its Elucidation lacks clear normative limits as it merely provides an interpretive explanation of the body of the article,” Leon explained.
Legal counsel Ratu Eka Shaira added that the posita and spporting arguments had been revised. The petitioners asserted they had strengthened their material arguments, especially regarding the newly added challenge to Article 18 paragraph (1) and its Elucidation.
“The phrase ‘acts in accordance with their own judgement’ in Article 18 paragraph (1) clearly opens the door to broad interpretation, which leads to disproportionate application,” Ratu said.
Article 25 paragraph (1) of the Police Law states, “Every member of the Indonesian National Police is granted a rank that reflects their role, function, and capability, and serves as the legitimacy of their authority and responsibility in duty.” Meanwhile, Article 18 paragraph (1) of the Police Law reads, “In the public interest, officers of the Indonesian National Police in carrying out their duties and exercising their authority may act according to their own judgment.” The Elucidation of Article 18 paragraph (1) provides, “What is meant by ‘acting according to their own judgement’ is an act that may be undertaken by a member of the Indonesian National Police who in acting must consider the benefits and risks of their action and ensure it serves the public interest.”
With this expansion, the petitioners also revised their petitum. They now request the Court to declare the phrase “acts in accordance with their own judgment” in Article 18 paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2002 to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution, except insofar as it is understood that acting in accordance with their own judgment must be based in law, professionalism, proportionality, and accountability, and purely for the public interest, considering the benefits and risks, and not for private or group interests. They further request the Elucidation of Article 18 paragraph (1) be declared unconstitutional and non-binding.
Additionally, the petitioners ask the Court to declare that the phrase “legitimacy of authority” in Article 25 paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2002 is unconstitutional except to the extent that the authority of Indonesian National Police members is valid only when exercised in accordance with law, professionalism, and the public interest, and not for private or group interest.
Also read:
Two Citizens Challenge Police Law After Receiving Threats Over Alleged Abuse of Authority
Previously, at the preliminary hearing, the petitioners claimed to have received threats from a police officer suspected of abusing his authority. The incident began when Petitioner I was contacted by M. Rifky Widyanto Pratama, who identified himself as an active police officer in the information and communications technology unit of the Jakarta Metropolitan Police. The officer inquired about the stage name “Icha Lovely,” formerly used by Leon’s client’s wife.
“The incident the Petitioner experienced not only reflects an abuse of power but also shows an intent to exploit the attributes of the Police for personal gain, without any legal basis,” Leon stated during the preliminary hearing of Case No. 183/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Wednesday, October 15, 2025.
Petitioner I is an attorney representing his client, a company identified as PT RCM. He explained that the company owned the stage name. However, Rifky rejected the explanation and began questioning the company’s legality, accusing it of lacking valid registration.
Rifky allegedly demanded access to the company’s private legal documents, which Leon could not provide due to confidentiality. Refusing to hand over the documents, Leon was threatened when Rifky warned that he would initiate an official investigation into the company’s legality.
“I conducted a profiling check and confirmed that this individual is indeed an active police officer. He even stated explicitly via WhatsApp that he is an active officer assigned to that specific division,” Leon explained.
Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario
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.
Tuesday, October 28, 2025 | 14:47 WIB 147