Ria Merryanti and Syamsul Jahidin, petitioners in the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Police Law), revising their petition virtually on Wednesday (5/13/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) once again held a hearing on 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 Wednesday, May 13, 2026. The hearing for Case No. 145/PUU-XXIV/2026 examined revisions to the petition.

Petitioner Syamsul Jahidin said the Petitioners had revised several parts of the petition in accordance with the advice of the panel of constitutional justices during the preliminary hearing. The revisions included removing three petitioners, correcting several clerical errors, and sharpening the arguments in the posita.

“So now there are only two Petitioners, Your Honors: myself, Syamsul Jahidin, and Dr. Ria Merryanti A.P., M.H.,” Syamsul said virtually.

Syamsul further argued that many active police officers continue to hold civilian posts following Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 due to multiple interpretations of the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law. Therefore, the Petitioners requested the Court to provide a constitutional interpretation of the phrase “self-explanatory” in the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law.

Also read: Advocate Challenges Elucidation on Active Police Officers Holding Civilian Posts

Case No. 145/PUU-XXIV/2026 was initially filed by Syamsul Jahidin, Ria Merryanti, Marina Ria Aritonang, ST Luthfiani, and Eka Nurhayati Ishak. However, after the revision, only Syamsul Jahidin and Ria Merryanti remained as Petitioners.

The Petitioners challenge the phrase, “What is meant by ‘positions outside the police institution’ are positions unrelated to policing,” in the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law.

“The elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) actually reduces the norm contained in the main body of the article,” Syamsul Jahidin argued virtually during the preliminary hearing at the Court on Thursday, April 30, 2026.

According to the Petitioners, the phrase creates a legal anomaly, obscures the meaning of Article 28 paragraph (3), and opens loopholes for active police officers to hold civilian posts without relinquishing their status. This, they argued, contradicts the principles of professionalism, neutrality, and limitation of power in a state governed by the rule of law. Doctrinally, the elucidation has exceeded its function because it alters the meaning of the principal norm stipulated in Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law.

The Petitioners further asserted that the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law fails to satisfy the principles of consistency, coherence, harmony, synchronization, and correspondence, thereby contravening Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because it expands the exception without clear limitations. In legislative theory, an elucidation should neither add to nor alter a statutory norm. However, in this case, the elucidation instead weakens the prohibition contained in the main body of the article.

Therefore, in their petitum, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare the phrase in the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3), namely, “What is meant by ‘positions outside the police institution’ are positions unrelated to policing,” unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted as: “Elucidation of Article 28 Paragraph (3): SELF-EXPLANATORY.”

Previously, Syamsul Jahidin had filed a judicial review petition concerning provisions related to the prohibition against active police officers holding concurrent positions. The petition was later decided in Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, in which the Court ruled, among others, that the phrase “or not based on assignment from the Chief of Police” in the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Police Law was unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Author: Ilham Wiryadi Muhammad
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Andhini SF.
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

---