Jakarta, hitclubapk3 Indonesia
—
The National Police Commission (Kompolnas) stated that the police must comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) regarding active members of the National Police who must resign or retire if they wish to hold civilian positions.
“All parties, police institutions and other institutions that will need police colleagues in them, yes, must comply with this decision with limited procedures,” said Kompolnas Commissioner M. Choirul Anam in Jakarta, Friday (14/11).
According to Anam, the interpretation of the norms given by the Court applies after the decision is pronounced.All parties, he said, must respect it.
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
On the other hand, he views that the Court’s decision is in line with the public’s high hopes for the National Police to become more professional by concentrating on internal policing.
“And what is no less important is that there is a tradition of openness and legal compliance within the police. Therefore, the Constitutional Court’s decision will be implemented,” he said.
Previously, the Constitutional Court emphasized that members of the Indonesian National Police (Polri) who hold positions outside the police, aka civilian positions, must resign or retire from the police service.
The Constitutional Court through Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 which was pronounced on Thursday (14/11), removed the provisions which had previously provided a loophole for active police officers to occupy civil positions without giving up their membership status first.
“Stating the phrase ‘or not based on an assignment from the Chief of Police’ in the Explanation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the National Police is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no binding legal force,” said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Jakarta.
In this case, the Constitutional Court granted the petition of advocate Syamsul Jahidin and student Christian Adrianus Sihite in its entirety.The petitioners tested the constitutionality of the norms of Article 28 paragraph (3) and the Elucidation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law.
Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law states that
“Members of the Indonesian National Police can hold positions outside the police after resigning or retiring from the police service.”
Meanwhile, the Elucidation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law reads,
“What is meant by ‘positions outside the police’ are positions that are not related to the police or are not based on assignments from the National Police Chief.”
Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur explained substantially that Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law actually emphasizes one important thing, namely that members of the National Police can only hold positions outside the police after resigning or retiring.
This means, said Ridwan, that if understood and interpreted carefully, “resigning or retiring from the police service” is a requirement that must be fulfilled by members of the National Police to hold positions outside the police.
From the construction of the Explanation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law, the Constitutional Court considers that the phrase “what is meant by a position outside the police is a position that has no connection with the police” is intended to explain the norm in Article 28 paragraph (3).
However, the Court examined that the phrase “or not based on an assignment from the National Police Chief” apparently does not clarify the norms of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law at all.As a result, there is a lack of clarity regarding the norms of the article in question.
“Such a formulation has the effect of creating legal uncertainty in filling positions for National Police members who can hold positions outside the police and at the same time creating legal uncertainty for the careers of ASN who are outside the police institution,” said Ridwan.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the phrase “or not based on an assignment from the National Police Chief” in the Elucidation to Article 28 paragraph (3) of the National Police Law is ambiguous and creates legal uncertainty so that it is not in accordance with the mandate of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
(between/gil)
[Gambas:hitclubapk3 Video]
