Constitutional Court Orders Redesign of Bakamla Duties; Agency Ready to Comply

The Constitutional Court (MK) has ordered that the duties and functions of the Indonesian Maritime Security Agency (Bakamla) be restructured or redesigned. The Head of Bakamla, Admiral Madya Irvansyah, stated that the agency will comply with the Constitutional Court’s decision.

“That is good. We are grateful for the decision. We will certainly comply with the MK’s decision and the order to redesign; we will redesign,” said Irvansyah at the parliamentary complex in Senayan, Jakarta, on Thursday (17/9/2026).

Irvansyah believes the Constitutional Court’s ruling could serve as a catalyst for the immediate issuance of the Maritime Security Law. He stated that he is prepared for any changes to duties following the redesign.

“We are ready. If it is the MK’s order, it is the state’s order, we are ready to implement it. We are currently making progress on the maritime security law. We might as well just create a new law,” he said.

Irvansyah noted that Bakamla focuses on securing the seas, primarily through patrolling activities. He jokingly added that Bakamla does not patrol residential areas.

“We are the Maritime Security Agency; our focus is patrolling the sea, not patrolling villages. Clearly. We are not doing neighbourhood watch,” he remarked.

The Constitutional Court Decision

Previously, the Constitutional Court partially granted a judicial review petition against Law Number 32 of 2014 concerning Maritime Affairs. The Court ordered that Bakamla’s duties and functions be restructured or redesigned.

“Granting the Petitioner’s request in part,” stated the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Suhartoyo, while reading the verdict for case number 180/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the Constitutional Court building in Central Jakarta, Wednesday (16/9/2026).

The Court ruled that Article 59 paragraph (3), Article 61, Article 62, and Article 63 paragraph (1) of Law Number 32 of 2014 concerning Maritime Affairs are in conflict with the 1945 Constitution and are conditionally unconstitutional unless interpreted as follows:

‘Within a maximum of 2 years since the verdict a quo is pronounced, a redesign regarding the duties, functions, and authority of the Maritime Security Agency must be conducted. If within that maximum period of 2 years no redesign is performed, then the duties, functions, and authority of the Maritime Security Agency related to law enforcement shall be in conflict with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and shall have no binding legal force.’

“Declaring Article 59 paragraph (3), Article 61, Article 62, and Article 63 paragraph (1) of Law Number 32 of 2014 concerning Maritime Affairs to be in conflict with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and to have no binding legal force conditionally, provided they are interpreted as: ’within a maximum of two years since the verdict a quo is pronounced, a redesign regarding the duties, functions, and authority of the Maritime Security Agency must be conducted…” Suhartoyo emphasised.

In its considerations, the Constitutional Court found overlaps and inconsistencies in Bakamla’s institutional concept within the Maritime Law. The Court noted that the articles related to Bakamla in the Maritime Law do not merely regulate coordinative matters but also grant law enforcement functions to Bakamla.

“Based on the legal facts from the law-making body, the Court finds that the substance of the institutional concept, including the functions and authority designed by the law-makers, increasingly shows inconsistency or overlap. The concept of Bakamla’s institution, established to perform maritime security and safety patrol duties under Law 32/2014, conflicts with the mandated working relationship concept, including its coordinative functions,” the Constitutional Court Justice stated while reading the considerations.

The Court stated that Bakamla’s law enforcement powers—such as stopping, inspecting, and arresting vessels—are actions that can only be performed by law enforcement agencies through a due process of law mechanism. Therefore, the Court ruled that a restructuring of the nature, duties, functions, and authority inherent to Bakamla is necessary.

“This means a clear and certain design must be created for the Bakamla institution, either through its own law or within Law 32/2014, determining whether Bakamla returns to the status of Bakorkamla, or an institution whose primary duty is as a maritime security and safety body,” the Court emphasised.