Petitioner’s legal counsel delivering the main points of the petition on the judicial review of the State Civil Apparatus Law and the National Police Law. Photo by MKRI/Panji.
Jakarta (MKRI) - Advocate Zico Leonard Djagardo Simanjuntak has filed a petition for judicial review of Article 19 paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of Law No. 20 of 2023 on State Civil Apparatus (ASN Law), as well as the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Police Law), as interpreted in Constitutional Court Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025. The preliminary hearing for Petition No. 223/PUU-XXIII/2025 was held in the Plenary Courtroom on Tuesday, November 25, 2025.
The Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law provides that “the term ‘positions outside the police’ refers to positions that have no connection with police affairs or are not based on an assignment from the Chief of Police (Kapolri).” This provision was subsequently interpreted by the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 as meaning that “positions outside the police” are those that have no connection with police affairs. Meanwhile, Article 19 paragraph (2) letter b of the ASN Law stipulates that “certain ASN positions may be filled by:… b. members of the Indonesian National Police.”
The Petitioner contended that the issue of police officers holding concurrent positions has not been resolved comprehensively and substantively by Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025. Through his counsel, Ratu Eka Shaira, the petitioner explained that the object of review in the earlier case was too narrow, thereby failing to provide fair legal protection, while fully aware that the Court is bound by the principle of judicial restraint. As a result, the Court could only rule on the phrase “or not based on an assignment from the Chief of Police,” even though that wording does not stand alone as an independent provision.
In essence, the petitioner argued that this clause is closely linked to Article 19 of the ASN Law, as explained by the Government, which stated that “assignment from the Chief of Police” is only one element and not the sole legal basis for allowing police officers to occupy positions outside the police force. In other words, the more fundamental legal basis for such appointments is Article 19 paragraph (2) of the ASN Law, which explicitly provides that certain ASN positions may be filled by members of the Indonesian National Police.
The Constitution clearly mandates that members of the police may only hold positions outside the police after resigning or retiring from active service, while the Court, bound by judicial restraint, could not go beyond the scope of the request. Therefore, Article 19 paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of the ASN Law remain in force as the legal basis for assigning police officers to posts in other institutions without requiring their resignation. Therefore, in the petitioner’s view, in order to ensure fair legal protection, the phrase “members of the Indonesian National Police” in the article a quo must be declared unconstitutional.
Creating Multi-Interpretation
The petitioner also challenged the phrase “positions that have no connection with police affairs” in the Elucidation of the provision a quo, which is considered to invite multiple interpretations and to conflict with Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law itself. The petitioner further contended that the current norm carries the risk of undermining the status and independence of other institutions, while in Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Court, again constrained by judicial restraint, could not rule beyond the wording “assignment from the Chief of Police,” thereby leaving the remaining parts of the provision intact.
For the sake of fair legal protection and to prevent ambiguous interpretations and degradation of the status of state institutions, the petitioner argued that the phrase “positions that have no connection” must also be declared unconstitutional, rendering the entirety of the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law unconstitutional as a whole.
“Accordingly, the petitioner requests the Court to declare the phrase ‘members of the Indonesian National Police’ in Article 19 paragraphs (2), (3), and (4) of Law No. 20 of 2023 on State Civil Apparatus inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and without binding legal force, and to declare that the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police, as interpreted in Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, is inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution and lacks binding legal force,” Ratu Eka read out the petitum of the petition.
Constitutional Harm
In the Justices’ advice, Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh requested that the petitioner further clarify the potential harm arising from the continued application of the contested norms and elaborate more concretely on their effect on the petitioner.
“With respect to the grounds of the petition, the arguments should be further elaborated on a theoretical basis sufficient to justify the Court departing from its recent precedent, given that Decision 114 was issued only in 2025, within the same year. Therefore, the reasoning, particularly in petitum points two and three, needs to be strengthened to support the relief requested,” Justice Daniel stated.
Justice M. Guntur Hamzah advised the petitioner to more clearly explain the alleged constitutional harm and its connection with the implementation of the norms in question. “The causal link between the operation of these norms and the petitioner’s position is sometimes not clearly drawn. A narrative is constructed between the advocate’s role and the police, but it must be shown whether there is a direct causal relationship. As an advocate, this should be examined in more depth, including what the legal standing was in Decision 114, which needs to be carefully studied,” Justice Guntur explained.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Suhartoyo added remarks on the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law that was challenged in Petition Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, urging the current petitioner to re-examine that ruling closely. “The Court assesses the norm as a coherent whole rather than in isolation, so the arguments in this petition need to be aligned with that approach,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated.
At the close of the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo granted the petitioner 14 days to revise the petition. The revised petition must be submitted no later than Monday, December 8, 2025, at 12:00 Western Indonesian Time, after which the Court will schedule a second hearing to consider the main points of the revised petition.
Case tracking
Author: Sri Pujianti.
Editor: N. Rosi.
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, November 25, 2025 | 17:43 WIB 362