Petitioner Syamsul Jahidin presenting the main points of the petition virtually during the preliminary hearing at the panel courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Thursday (4/30/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Police Law) on Thursday, April 30, 2026. Petition No. 145/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by Syamsul Jahidin, Ria Merryanti, Marina Ria Aritonang, ST Luthfiani, and Eka Nurhayati Ishak. The Petitioners challenged the phrase, “What is meant by positions outside the police institution are positions that have no relation whatsoever to policing,” in the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law.

“The elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) actually reduces the substance of the main provision,” Syamsul Jahidin stated during the virtual hearing.

The Petitioners argued that the phrase creates a legal anomaly, obscures the meaning of Article 28 paragraph (3), and opens the possibility for active police officers to hold civilian posts without resigning from the police force. According to them, this contradicts the principles of professionalism, neutrality, civilian supremacy, and limitation of power in a state based on the rule of law. They further asserted that the elucidation exceeds its proper function because it changes the meaning of the principal norm contained in the article.

The Petitioners also argued that the elucidation creates a new interpretation suggesting that positions still “related” to police functions are not considered positions outside the police institution. This, they said, creates room for abuse by allowing active police officers to occupy civilian offices as long as they are claimed to be related to policing functions, while also blurring the institutional boundaries between the police and civilian offices.

Syamsul added that such interpretation has already occurred in practice through Police Regulation (Perpol) No. 10 of 2025, which regulates the technical mechanism for appointing police personnel to civilian offices. “The regulation lists 17 ministries, institutions, agencies, and commissions that may be filled by police personnel,” he explained, arguing that the regulation exceeded Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025.

The Petitioners therefore maintained that the elucidation violates Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because it expands exceptions without clear limitations. In legislative drafting theory, they argued, an elucidation should not add to or alter a norm, yet the elucidation in question instead weakens the prohibition contained in the main provision.

In their petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare the phrase unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as, “Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3): Sufficiently clear.”

Previously, Syamsul Jahidin had also challenged provisions related to the prohibition on active police officers holding concurrent positions. In Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, the Court declared the phrase “or not based on assignment from the Chief of Police” in the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir advised the Petitioners to revise their petition, considering the addition of petitioners compared to the earlier case. He also pointed out drafting errors, including an incorrect reference to constitutional provisions.

Adies further emphasized that the Petitioners needed to explain why the current petition should not be considered ne bis in idem in relation to the previous case and asked them to improve the petition’s structure.

Constitutional Justice Liliek P. Adi asked the Petitioners to elaborate further on the constitutional impairment suffered by Petitioners one, three, four, and five.

Meanwhile, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, who chaired the panel, reminded the Petitioners that the Court had already ruled on part of the elucidation in Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025. He therefore asked them to explain why the remaining elucidation, previously deemed constitutional, should now be considered contrary to the Constitution.

Before closing the hearing, Saldi informed the Petitioners that they had 14 days to revise their petition. The revised petition must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office of the Constitutional Court by Wednesday, May 13, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. WIB. The Court will then schedule the next hearing to hear the revised petition.

Also read:

Advocate Objects to Active-Duty Police Officers Holding Civil Positions

Petitioners Argue Constitutional Loss Due to Active-Duty Police in Civil Positions

House, Govt Not Ready to Testify in Case on Police in Civil Positions

Hearing on Police Within Civil Service Continues

Govt’s Expert Denies Conflict of Interest in Appointment of Police Within Civil Service

Constitutional Court Bans Active Police from Civil Service

Author: Ilham Wiryadi Muhammad
Editor: N. Rosi
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

Explore The Case: Case No. 145/PUU-XXIV/2026 (In Bahasa Indonesia)

---