Constitutional Court Grants Withdrawal of Judicial Review on Polri's Position Under President
The Constitutional Court (MK) has granted the withdrawal of a material review petition concerning Law Number 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (Polri), which questioned the police force’s position under the President and requested it be changed to under the Ministry of Home Affairs (Kemendagri).
“Granting the withdrawal of the petitioners’ application,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo during the pronouncement of the ruling at the MK Building in Jakarta on Wednesday.
The judicial review was filed by two Indonesian citizens working as advocates, Christian Adrianus Sihite and Syamsul Jahidin, under case number 63/PUU-XXIV/2026. In their petition, they requested the court to rule that Article 8 paragraph (1) of the Polri Law was contrary to the 1945 Constitution and lacked binding legal force unless interpreted to mean that Polri is placed under the President through a minister responsible for domestic affairs.
The petitioners argued that placing Polri directly under the President could potentially cause the loss of guaranteed rights to freely exercise voting rights, leading to dishonest and unfair elections. They alleged that the police force could be directed for the political interests of the ruling power, referencing alleged involvement of a so-called “Brown Party” or “Parcok” during the 2024 elections. They cited examples of 25 presidential countries, including Singapore and other developing nations, that place their police forces under a ministry.
The trial process began on 19 February 2026 with a preliminary hearing, followed by two sessions hearing testimonies from the House of Representatives (DPR) and the government on 24 April and 13 May 2026. The constitutional justices also summoned Polri as a related party on Wednesday (3 June).
However, during that session, the petitioners agreed to withdraw their application, citing their support for Polri remaining directly under the President as it is more independent.
“We, the petitioners’ legal counsel and the petitioners themselves, have studied in greater detail and understand that the decision of the President of the Republic of Indonesia stating that Polri is directly under the President is the best arrangement. Therefore, we appreciate and respect that decision, and for that reason, we agree to withdraw,” said petitioners’ legal counsel Henoch Thomas.
Petitioner Syamsul Jahidin emphasised that the withdrawal was based on personal awareness without any intervention or intimidation from any party.
“The KPRP team includes constitutional law professors such as Prof Jimly, Prof Mahfud, and Prof Yusril, meaning the team has already determined that Polri should remain under the President. One of our reasons for withdrawing is precisely that. We thought and considered that if we continued, various problems would arise,” said Jahidin.
He noted that because Indonesia is an archipelagic state rather than a unitary state like the United States, placing Polri under a ministry would create conflicts of interest.
“Substantively, we agree that Polri should remain under the President. We believe Polri remains loyal to the King (Satya Prabu), independent, and better off than being under a ministry,” he stated.
“This is an academic forum; we explored, searched, and studied, and up to this point it is proven that I was not intervened, we were not intimidated, nor were we splashed with acid. So it’s all enjoyable. That is one of our sufficient grounds for withdrawing our application,” Jahidin added.
Following the withdrawal request, the Constitutional Court held a justices’ deliberation meeting and concluded that the withdrawal of Case Number 63/PUU-XXIV/2026 was legally justified.
“The justices’ deliberation meeting has determined that the withdrawal of these applications is legally justified; therefore, the petitioners may not resubmit the a quo applications,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo.
The ruling for case number 63/PUU-XXIV/2026 was read out together with several other cases that were also withdrawn by their respective petitioners and granted by the court.