Constitutional Court Questions Reason for Withdrawal of Lawsuit Regarding National Police Chief's Term of Office
The Constitutional Court (MK) has questioned the reasons behind the petitioners’ decision to withdraw a judicial review of the National Police Law concerning the term of office for the National Police Chief.
Presiding over the preliminary hearing for petition number 315/PUU-XXIV/2026, regarding the judicial review of Law Number 5 of 2026 concerning the Amendment to Law Number 2 of 2022 regarding the National Police, Chief Justice Suhartoyo asked the petitioners whether the withdrawal was due to external influence.
“The registry reports that the petitioners have submitted a letter to withdraw the petition; is this correct? Why is the petition being withdrawn?” Suhartoyo asked the petitioners during the hearing at the Constitutional Court Building in Jakarta on Tuesday.
Responding to the Court, Lisdawati Manao, acting as the second petitioner, explained that they had indeed submitted a withdrawal request. She stated that after carefully studying the submitted material, they concluded that the matter falls under the authority of ‘open legal policy’ and noted certain limitations within their submitted petition.
“With your permission to answer, Your Honour, after we, the petitioners, re-examined the submitted material and held discussions, we are of the opinion that our petition falls under the authority of open legal policy and that there are limitations in the petition we submitted. Therefore, we are withdrawing our petition,” said Lisdawati.
Suhartoyo subsequently questioned that if the reason was based on ‘open legal policy’, this should have been known by the petitioners before filing the petition.
Regarding the mentioned limitations in the petition, Suhartoyo explained that the Court provides guidance during proceedings, so the petitioners should not be concerned about such limitations.
“If there are limitations, there will be guidance provided here (in the MK proceedings). What is the concern?” Suhartoyo asked.
In response, Lisdawati explained that they had re-examined the petition material, particularly regarding points 37, letters B and C.
“We have re-examined and concluded that ultimately, the formation and amendment of laws is the authority of the House of Representatives (DPR) together with the President. Therefore, we, the petitioners, are withdrawing this petition,” she stated.
In response to the petitioners’ explanation, Suhartaryo sought to confirm once more that the reason for the withdrawal was not due to any intervention or influence from external parties.