Petitioners attending a hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Polri), Wednesday (6/3/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing on Wednesday, June 3, 2026, in the judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Polri). The hearing for Case No. 63/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Christian Adrianus Sihite, Syamsul Jahidin, and Edy Rudyanto, was initially scheduled to hear testimony from Polri as the Relevant Party.

However, during the hearing, Petitioner Syamsul Jahidin informed the Court that the Petitioners had decided to withdraw their petition.

“Representing the Petitioners, I confirm that we have submitted a letter withdrawing the petition. This decision was made following recommendations issued by the Polri Reform Acceleration Team. The Petitioners agree with the recommendations put forward by the team, which includes several constitutional law scholars such as Prof. Jimly Asshiddiqie, Mahfud MD, and Yusril Ihza Mahendra. We believe Polri is more independent under the President. Therefore, we have agreed to withdraw the petition we filed. Thank you,” Jahidin said.

In response to the withdrawal request, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Court would first deliberate on the matter before deciding whether to grant the request.

“And if the withdrawal request is eventually granted, there will be no need for us to hear testimony from Polri. However, if the request cannot be granted, we will summon the parties again for a hearing with the same agenda as today, namely to hear the testimony,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo explained.

Also read:

Polri Under MOHA, Petitioners Argue

Petitioners Strengthen Constitutional Arguments for Placing Polri under MOHA

DPR, Government Ask Court to Postpone Police Law Hearing

DPR, Government Explain Polri’s Position as State Apparatus Under President

At the preliminary hearing on February 19, 2026, the Petitioners challenged Article 8 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of the Police Law. They argued that the 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 stipulates that “the Indonesian National Police shall be under the President.” Meanwhile, Article 8 paragraph (2) states that “the Indonesian National Police shall be led by the Chief of the National Police, who in carrying out his duties shall be accountable to the President in accordance with statutory laws and regulations.”

According to the Petitioners, Polri’s position directly under the President creates the potential for discrimination and executive intervention in law enforcement. They contended that advocates representing opposition groups or parties with views contrary to the government could potentially be treated differently from advocates representing the government or its supporters. Such a situation, they argued, could undermine advocates’ ability to provide effective legal representation and defense.

The Petitioners further maintained that the challenged provisions create legal uncertainty, open the door to executive interference, and conflict with the principles of the rule of law, equality before the law, and the protection of citizens’ constitutional rights. As a state governed by law, they argued, all state institutions, including Polri, must operate under the rule of law rather than unchecked executive power.

Therefore, the Petitioners requested the Court to conditionally declare Article 8 paragraph (1) of the Police Law unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that Polri is under the President through the Minister of Home Affairs (MOHA). They also requested the Court to conditionally declare Article 8 paragraph (2) unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as it is not interpreted to mean that the National Police Chief is accountable to the minister overseeing domestic affairs in accordance with statutory laws and regulations.

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Fauzan F.
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. 63/PUU-XXIV/2026

---