The Petitioners’ legal counsel attending the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police, Thursday (4/23/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Police Law) on Thursday, April 23, 2026. Case No. 63/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Christian Adrianus Sihite (Petitioner I), Syamsul Jahidin (Petitioner II), and Edy Rudyanto (Petitioner III). The Petitioners challenge the constitutionality of Article 8 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Police Law.

The second hearing had been scheduled to hear the testimonies of the House of Representatives (DPR) and the Government/President. However, both requested a postponement.

“Today’s hearing was supposed to hear the testimonies of the DPR and the President/Government. However, both testifiers could not present their statements as they were not ready and requested a postponement. We agreed to postpone the presentation of the testimonies. The next hearing will be held on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. WIB,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo.

Also read:

Petitioners Strengthen Constitutional Arguments for Placing Polri under MOHA

Polri Under MOHA, Petitioners Argue

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, February 19, 2026, the Petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Article 8 paragraphs (1) and (2) of the Police Law. They argued that the challenged provisions contravene Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 30 paragraph (4), Article 17 paragraph (1), and Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Article 8 paragraph (1) of the Police Law reads, “The Indonesian National Police shall be under the President.” Article 8 paragraph (2) reads, “The Indonesian National Police shall be led by the Chief of Police, who in carrying out his duties shall be responsible to the President in accordance with statutory laws and regulations.” Meanwhile, Article 17 paragraph (1) of the Constitution reads, “The President shall be assisted by state ministers.”

The Petitioners believe that placing the Police under the President gives rise to potential discrimination. Advocates defending the opposition or parties at odds with the Government could be treated differently from those handling cases for the Government or its supporters. This, they argue, would infringe upon their right as advocates to provide effective advocacy and defense. Such injury may be actual or potential, but is certain to occur as it affects the effectiveness of the Petitioners’ professional duties in legal defense.

Therefore, the Petitioners argue that the a quo provisions have created legal uncertainty, opened room for power intervention, and contravened the principles of the rule of law, equality before the law, and the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights. As a state based on law, all aspects of state power, including law enforcement by the Police, must be subject to the rule of law and not to unfettered power. Directly placing the Police under the President without oversight and limitation mechanisms could lead to abuse of power, which runs counter to the rule-of-law principle.

In their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 8 paragraph (1) of the Police Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted to mean, “The Indonesian National Police shall be under the President through the minister administering domestic government affairs.” They also request that the Court declare Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Police Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted to mean, “The Indonesian National Police shall be led by the Chief of Police, who in carrying out his duties shall be responsible to the minister administering domestic government affairs in accordance with statutory laws and regulations.”

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Fauzan F.
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

Explore the Case: Case No. 63/PUU-XXIV/2026

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.

 

 

 

---