The Petitioners during the Preliminary Examination Hearing of Case Number 61/PUU-XXIV/2026 concerning the judicial review of Law Number 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police, Thursday (02/19/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

JAKARTA, (MKRI) – Syamsul Jahidin, Ria Merryanti, and Marina Ria Aritonang have filed a petition for judicial review of the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Police Law) to the Constitutional Court. According to the Petitioners, the provision in the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) creates a loophole for active police officers to hold civilian positions, which contradicts Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945).

“Any legal provision that contradicts the Constitution must be annulled. However, in practice, due to such broad interpretation, many expert opinions continue to rely on it, resulting in numerous active police officers holding civilian positions,” Syamsul stated during the Preliminary Examination Hearing of Petition Number 61/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Thursday (02/19/2026) at the Court’s courtroom in Jakarta.

The Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law states, “What is meant by ‘position outside the police’ is a position that has no relation to policing.” According to the Petitioners, this elucidation creates a legal anomaly and obscures the meaning of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law, which stipulates, “Members of the Indonesian National Police may hold positions outside the police after resigning or retiring from police service.”

The Petitioners argued that the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) shifts the meaning of the main provision. While the main provision requires resignation or retirement before holding positions outside the police, the elucidation instead expands exceptions without clear limits. In legislative theory, an elucidation should not add to or alter a norm; however, in this case, it weakens the prohibition contained in the main body of Article 28 paragraph (3).

They further stated that the norm of Article 28 paragraph (3) is limitative, imperative, and leaves no room for interpretation. As reflected in the legal considerations of Constitutional Court Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, provisions using the phrase “after resigning or retiring” contain a mandatory constitutional requirement, not a matter of policy discretion.

The challenged norm is also argued to substantively create a “dual function of the police,” allowing the police to act not only in state security but also in governance, bureaucracy, and social life. This condition is said to create structural discrimination against civilians, including the Petitioners, and to narrow the space for civilian governance, contrary to the spirit of democratization and civilian supremacy following the reform era.

Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law explicitly closes any opportunity for active police officers to hold positions outside the institutional structure of the police, without exception. This norm constitutes a legal command, not merely an administrative provision. Therefore, the Petitioners argue that any occupation of positions outside the police institution by active police officers constitutes a violation of the law and/or the Constitution.

In their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare the phrase in the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law—“What is meant by ‘position outside the police’ is a position that has no relation to policing”—as contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945) and having no binding legal force. Alternatively, the Petitioners request the Court to declare the phrase conditionally unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) is “self-explanatory.”

The petition was examined by a Panel of Constitutional Justices chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah. During the advisory session, Guntur stated that the Petitioners should present arguments capable of convincing the Constitutional Justices to reconsider their stance from Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025.

“You must explain in this petition what the shortcomings are in the Court’s decision, which you yourselves, as Petitioners, previously had granted,” Guntur remarked.

Before closing the hearing, Suhartoyo stated that the Petitioners are given the opportunity to revise their petition. The revised petition, both in softcopy and hardcopy, must be submitted to the Court no later than Wednesday, March 4, 2026 at 12:00 p.m. WIB.

Author             : Mimi Kartika

Editor              : Lulu Anjarsari P.

PR                   : Fauzan Febriyan

Translator       : Agusweka PS.

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 prevails.

 

 

Explore the Case: Number 61/PUU-XXIV/2026.

---