Petitioner Syamsul Jahidin at the ruling hearing for case No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police, Thursday (11/13/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the phrase “or not based on assignments by the Chief of Police” in the elucidation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police unconstitutional and not legally binding, as it handed down Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025. Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivered the verdict on Thursday, November 13, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.

Delivering the Court’s legal considerations, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur stated that said phrase had failed to clarify Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law. In fact, it obscured the phrase “after resigning or retiring from police service” in the norm. Such obscure language leads to uncertainty in the stationing of police officers in positions outside of the police and for the career of state civil apparatus (ASN) outside of the police force.

Therefore, the Court asserted that the Petitioners’ claim of the phrase has led to ambiguity and expansion of the article a quo. As such, the provisions may fail to provide legal certainty, which is guaranteed under Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

“Based on the foregoing legal considerations, the phrase ‘or not based on assignments by the Chief of Police’ in the elucidation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 has not providd guarantees of protection and legal certainty as required by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, as argued by the Petitioners. Therefore, the Petitioners’ arguments are legally founded in their entirety,” said Constitutional Justice Ridwan when reading out the Court’s legal considerations.

The decision contains a concurring opinion by Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani. In addition, Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah also delivered dissenting opinions.

Also read:

Advocate Objects to Active-Duty Police Officers Holding Civil Positions

Petitioners Argue Constitutional Loss Due to Active-Duty Police in Civil Positions

House, Govt Not Ready to Testify in Case on Police in Civil Positions

Govt: Not All Positions in Civil Service Can Be Filled by Police Members

Hearing on Police Within Civil Service Continues

Govt’s Expert Denies Conflict of Interest in Appointment of Police Within Civil Service

The petition for case No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Syamsul Jahidin, an advocate and doctoral student, and Christian Adrianus Sihite, an unemployed law school graduate. They challenge Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police and its elucidation.

Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law reads, “Members of the Indonesian National Police may occupy positions outside the police force after resigning or retiring from police service.” The elucidation of the provision further states, “The term ‘positions outside the police force’ refers to posts unrelated to police duties or not based on assignments by the Chief of Police.”

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, July 29, Syamsul said several active police officers have been appointed to civil posts outside the Police institutional structure without first resigning or retiring. These include roles such as chairperson of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), secretary-general of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, head of the National Narcotics Agency (BNN), deputy head of the National Cyber and Encryption Agency (BSSN), and head of the National Counterterrorism Agency (BNPT). This, he argued, violates the principle of public service neutrality and meritocracy, as well as harms the Petitioners’ constitutional right as citizens and professionals to equal protection under the law and equal opportunity in public governance.

The Petitioners believe that the legal provision and its elucidation lack clear limitations, allowing room for interpretation and loopholes that enable active-duty police officers to hold civilian positions without formally relinquishing their status. They argue that substantively, the provision has established a dual-function for the Police, enabling police officers not only to serve as law enforcement agents but also to take part in administrative, political, and social spheres.

Therefore, the Petitioners request that the Court declare the phrase “or not based on assignments by the Chief of Police” in the elucidation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
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.

---