Experts warn that absence of a term limit for the Polri Chief could undermine independence

Jakarta – Police analyst from the Institute for Security and Strategic Studies (ISSES), Bambang Rukminto, says that the absence of a fixed tenure for the Chief of the Indonesian National Police (Kapolri) in the Police Law (UU Polri) would affect the independence and neutrality of the institution.

When contacted by ANTARA in Jakarta on Friday, he stressed that the purpose of tenure limits is to maintain leadership stability and to prevent excessive political dependence on the executive.

‘From an institutional design perspective, the position becomes highly dependent on the configuration of the political executive. When the tenure has no certainty (time limit), institutional independence could weaken and the public’s perception of the Polri’s neutrality could be called into question,’ he said.

He added that the absence of a rule on the Kapolri’s tenure does not automatically mean the post is politicised, but the tenure limit concerns how democratic political oversight balances with police professionalism. It is not merely a legal technicality.

‘Therefore, the debate about the Kapolri’s tenure is not simply a legal-technical issue, but relates to how to balance democratic political oversight with police professionalism,’ he said.

In a press release from the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (2/3), the challenge to the law regarding Kapolri tenure is set out in petition No. 77/PUU-XXIV/2026 and tests Article 11(2), which reads ‘The proposal for appointment and dismissal of the Kapolri shall be submitted by the President to the House of Representatives along with its reasons’ in a preliminary examination.

The petition was filed by Tri Prasetio Putra Mumpuni. The petitioner says that the quoted article only regulates the appointment and dismissal of the Kapolri without setting a tenure period. In Tri’s view, the Kapolri’s position could become a post dependent on the political relationship with the President.

Moreover, Tri asserts that the absence of a fixed tenure based on a specific time period for the Kapolri constitutes an imbalance that creates systemic differences in the structure of public office and conflicts with the principle of equality before the law.

Therefore, Tri submitted a number of petitions asking the MK to declare the quoted article unconstitutional, conditional on not interpreting it as establishing a clear cap on the Kapolri’s tenure; the MK ruled constitutional so long as the tenure of the Kapolri is limited to a definite, firm, measurable period and may only be extended with the approval of the DPR.

Tri also asked the MK to order the law-makers (the DPR and the President) to make improvements and adjustments to the regulation of the Kapolri tenure within a maximum of one year from the date of this ruling, establishing firm, accountable, transparent limits and ensuring legislative oversight as part of the checks and balances.

Furthermore, the petition states that if the lawmakers do not implement improvements within that period, the Kapolri tenure shall be five years at most and may be extended only once with DPR approval.