Petitioner Cindy Allysa (left) at the ruling hearing for 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) rejected the petition for case No. 147/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review petition of Article 11 paragraph (2) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police and its elucidation. The Petitioners requested that the proposal for the appointment and dismissal of the national police chief submitted by the president to the House of Representatives (DPR) with valid reasons, such as the end of the five-year office term to guarantee the professionalism and stability of the police force.
However, the Court has not altered its position from the legal considerations in its previous decision on the material review of the same article and law, which was pronounced earlier in the day. “Up to this point, the Court has not had strong and fundamental legal reasons to depart from the legal considerations of Constitutional Court Decision No. 19/PUU-XXIII/2025; therefore, the legal considerations of Constitutional Court Decision No. 19/PUU-XXIII/2025, mutatis mutandis, also apply in considering the arguments of the petition a quo,” said Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani on Thursday, November 13, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.
In the legal considerations of said decision, the Court held that the office of the chief of the Indonesian national police is a professional career position that has a term limit, which is not determined periodically and does not automatically end at the same time as the expiration of the president’s term of office. In other words, the office of the chief of police has a limited term and may be dismissed at any time based on the president’s evaluation in accordance with laws and regulations.
Justice Arsul stated that the absence of the phrase “at ministerial level” in Law No. 2 2002 indicates, in the Court’s view, that the legislature intended to place the Indonesian national police within the state institutional system in accordance with the 1945 Constitution. The use of such a phrase would mean that the president’s political interests would predominantly determine the appointment of a chief of police.
Meanwhile, constitutionally, Article 30 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution expressly states that the police is an instrument of the state. As such, it must be able to place the maintenance of public security and order, as well as law enforcement, above the interests of any and all groups, including the president.
“In other words, by positioning the office of the chief of police as an equivalent to a minister, the chief of police would automatically become a member of the cabinet, which clearly has the potential to reduce the position of the police as an instrument of the state,” Justice Arsul said.
Also read:
Provisions on Appointment, Dismissal of National Police Chief Disputed Again
Petitioner Seeks to Limit Police Chief’s Term of Office
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.”
The petition in case No. 147/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by private employee Cindy Allyssa and advocate Syamsul Jahidin. They argued that the provision on the term of office of the National Police Chief (Kapolri) is unclear, thus requires limitation.
The Petitioners believed that such a limitation is necessary on moral, security, and public order grounds. Concentration of power in the hands of a single individual for an extended period risks fostering a cult of personality and diminishing the professionalism of the police force. Term limits, they argued, are consistent with moral considerations and the principles of good governance. From the perspective of security and public order, rotation in the leadership of the National Police is essential to maintaining public trust and preventing abuse of power.
This position, they added, is also consistent with the established practice of limiting the terms of other high offices such as the president, regional heads, and even the commander of the armed forces, whose tenures are restricted by law. Without similar limits on the chief of police, an imbalance and discrimination among state officials would arise.
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.
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.
Thursday, November 13, 2025 | 15:06 WIB 278