The ruling hearing for Case No. 145/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police, Wednesday (6/17/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition filed by Syamsul Jahidin and Ria Merryanti in the judicial review of the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Police Law). Decision No. 145/PUU-XXIV/2026 was pronounced at a hearing on Wednesday, June 17, 2026 in the Court’s plenary courtroom in Jakarta.

Delivering the Court’s legal consideration, Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir stated that the Petitioners’ arguments had, in substance, previously been considered by the Court in Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025. “This means that, in substance, to date, the Court has found no strong and fundamental reason to depart from the legal considerations in Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025,” Adies said, reading out the Court’s legal consideration.

The Court emphasized that the legal consideration in Petition No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 also applied to the present petition. “Therefore, based on that legal consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners’ arguments are legally groundless,” Adies explained.

Also read:

Advocate Challenges Elucidation on Active Police Officers Holding Civilian Posts

Petition on Police Law Elucidation Revised

For additional information, Petition 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 petition revision, only Syamsul Jahidin and Ria Merryanti remained as Petitioners.

The Petitioners challenged 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 a loophole 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 the elucidation of the article a quo 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,” in the Police Law 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 examined and decided by the Court in Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, with the verdict: “To grant the Petitioners’ petition in its entirety;” and “To declare the phrase ‘or not based on assignment from the Chief of Police’ in the elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2002 No. 2, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 4168) unconstitutional and not legally binding.”

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

The complete decision: Decision on Case No. 145/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.

 

---