Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra reading out the legal considerations for Decision No. 258/PUU-XXIII/2025, Friday (1/302026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.
JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) ruled that Petition No. 258/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material review of the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Republic of Indonesia National Police (Polri Law) is inadmissible. According to the Court, there is a lack of clarity regarding the matters desired by the Petitioner or the petition's petitum regarding which phrase in the Article in question the Court wants to be interpreted.
"However, in the petitum's petition, it is not stated which wording or phrase of the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 is to be challenged for its constitutionality," said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, reading out the legal considerations for Decision No. 258/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Friday, January 30, 2026.
In addition, the Petitioners in petitum number 3 intend to request the Court to declare the phrase Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 given meaning, but after the Court examined the wording of petitum number 3, it was found that the wording of the Petitioners' petitum was incomplete. In the petitum there was no sentence that indicated the conditions or requirements for constitutionality that was requested.
The description of the Petitioner's petitum in this way creates ambiguity and uncertainty regarding the content of the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002, the constitutionality of which is actually being requested to be challenged or to be interpreted by the Court. Is it the entire Elucidation of the article or only certain parts or phrases in the Elucidation of the article that are being requested to be cancelled or interpreted?
Therefore, the description of the petitum as such results in the Petitioners' petition not fulfilling the provisions as referred to in Article 30 letter a and Article 31 paragraph (1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Article 10 paragraph (3) and Article 36 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025. Therefore, in its decision, the Court ruled that the petition is inadmissible.
Read also:
Lawyers Re-challenge the Provisions on Dual Police Positions
Pemohon Uji Ketentuan Rangkap Jabatan Kepolisian Bertambah Jadi 4 Orang
For information, Advocate Christian Adrianus Sihite, Advocate Marina Ria Aritonang, state civil servant (ASN) Dr. Ria Merryanti, and advocate Syamsul Jahidin are the Petitioners for Petition No. 258/PUU-XXIII/2025. They believe that the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Indonesian National Police Law is interpreted to mean that members of the Indonesian National Police who are still active can hold positions outside the police institution without having to resign or retire first, as long as the position is considered to have a connection or is connected to the police.
According to the Petitioners, the above is contrary to the rule of law as referred to in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI), where officials who carry out public power functions should be free from conflicts of interest. They believe that the phrase "having a connection" actually allows active police officers to hold two overlapping roles, namely law enforcers and officials outside the police force.
Petitioners in their petitum asked the Court to declare that the phrase Elucidation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have binding legal force or to declare that the phrase Elucidation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and does not have conditionally binding legal force (conditionally unconstitutional) as long as it is not interpreted: Elucidation of Article 28 Paragraph (3): "CLEAR ENOUGH".
For information, Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Indonesian National Police Law states: "Members of the Republic of Indonesia National Police may hold positions outside the police force after resigning or retiring from police service. Then the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Indonesian National Police Law reads: "What is meant by "positions outside the police force" are positions that have no connection with the police."
Previously, Christian and Syamsul were Petitioners in Petition 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 for the judicial review of the same article and Law. In its decision on the Petition, the Court stated that the phrase "or not based on an assignment from the Chief of Police" in the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force. Therefore, after that decision, the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law reads: What is meant by "positions outside the police" are positions that have no connection with the police.(*)
Track case No. 258/PUU-XXIII/2025
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S.F.
Translator : Donny Yuniarto
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
Friday, January 30, 2026 | 09:59 WIB 143