Syamsul Jahidin as the principal petitioner delivering his revised petition at the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Law on the Indonesian National Police, Tuesday (11/11) in the Constitutional Court courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Syamsul Jahidin, a security guard, submitted revisions to his petition for the material judicial review of Article 3 paragraph (1) letter c and its elucidation of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (the Police Law) against Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution to the Constitutional Court. He argued that the regulation had triggered a conflation of executive and legislative functions because members of the Police are allowed to engage in private-sector activities relating to the procurement of security personnel.

“If members of the Police become business actors dealing with private entities, it creates an overlap between executive and legislative functions and violates the principle of separation of powers, as those responsible for enforcing the law would simultaneously take part in political or commercial roles,” Syamsul stated at the petition revision hearing of Case No. 195/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Tuesday (11/11/2025) in the Court’s courtroom.

He further asserted that the Police’s role in regulating and commercializing private security services generates social inequality and undermines the principle of equality before the law as guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which affirms that every person is entitled to recognition, guarantees, protection, and fair legal certainty as well as equal treatment before the law.

Also read:
Security Guard Challenges Police Law, Alleges Commercialization of Security Services

As reference, Article 3 paragraph (1) letter c of the Police Law stipulates: “(1) The implementers of police functions are the Indonesian National Police, assisted by: a. special police; b. civil servant investigators; and/or c. forms of community-based security.”
The elucidation of Article 3 paragraph (1) letter c further clarifies that “Forms of community-based security refer to security initiatives created out of community volition, awareness, and interest that subsequently obtain affirmation from the Indonesian National Police, such as neighborhood security units and security service businesses.”

Syamsul argued that he is entitled to certainty and protection from commercial exploitation in carrying out his profession as a security guard in order to obtain a decent livelihood. As both a petitioner and an advocate, he considers it his moral responsibility to help ensure that legal principles are upheld.

He also explained that before entering the profession, security guards must complete Gada Pratama training with a fee of IDR 4 million. To be promoted as a chief guard, team leader or manager, they must attend Gada Utama qualification training costing IDR 13.5 million. These expenses, he argued, are disproportionate to the authority and income attached to the profession, creating an imbalance in the pursuit of legal certainty.

Syamsul added that he had registered with a Security Services Business Entity (BUJP) for the required training, whereas certificates and security guard ID cards (KTA) are issued by the Police. According to him, this arrangement remains vulnerable to annulment by Police officials because it falls within the scope of authority referred to in Article 3 paragraph (1) letter c of the Police Law.

In his petitum, the Petitioner requested the Court to declare the phrase “security service businesses” and the clause “Regulation on community-based security is within the authority of the Chief of the Indonesian National Police” in the elucidation of Article 3 paragraph (1) letter c of the Police Law unconstitutional and not legally binding, or to declare them conditionally unconstitutional insofar as they are not interpreted as follows:

“Forms of community-based security refer to security initiatives established on the volition, awareness, and interests of the community itself, subsequently affirmed by the Indonesian National Police, such as neighborhood security units. These forms of community-based security shall possess limited police authority within the territorial jurisdiction (lingkungan kuasa tempat), including residential areas, workplaces, and educational settings. Examples include neighborhood security units in residential areas, security units in office complexes, or those operating in commercial areas.”

Explore the Case: Case No. 195/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Andhini SF

Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---