Police Law Continues to be Challenged in Constitutional Court; Government States Academic Papers Were Officially Prepared and Open

The Constitutional Court (MK) has held a follow-up hearing regarding the formal judicial review of Law Number 5 of 2026, which constitutes the third amendment to Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia. The fourth session of case Number 251/PUU-XXIV/2026 focused on hearing testimonies from the House of Representatives (DPR RI) and the President or the Government.

Deputy Minister of Law, Edward Omar Sharif Hiariej, stated that the formation of the Police Law was not conducted abruptly, despite the timeframe between the bill being proposed as a DPR initiative and its enactment being only 2ability 28 calendar days. According to Hiariej, the discussion of the Bill underwent several stages, starting from the preparatory meeting for the list of problem inventories (DIM) on 23-24 May 2026, Commission III working meetings on 25 May 2026, working committee meetings on 25 May, 4 June, and 8 June 2026, up to the Plenary Meeting for decision-making on 9 June 2026.

“It cannot be said that the discussion process of the Bill in question was conducted without adequate formal stages,” Hiariej stated during the plenary session presided over by MK Chief Suhartoyo on Tuesday (1/9).

Hiariej explained that the policy substance within the Police Bill had also undergone a process of planning and aspiration gathering since 2024. Therefore, the formal discussion stages in 2026 were considered a continuation and refinement of an ongoing process, rather than starting from scratch.

Regarding the petitioners’ claims concerning limited access to the Academic Papers, the Bill, the Problem Inventory List (DIM), and meeting minutes, the Government maintains that the obligation to disseminate information has been fulfilled through the legislature’s efforts to open information to the public. “The Academic Papers and the Draft Law in question were officially prepared by Commission III of the DPR RI as the basis and reference for discussion, and were scheduled openly,” said Hiddarij.

The Government believes that difficulties faced by the public in tracing certain documents do not automatically indicate that the law-making process suffered from formal defects. The Government considers the petitioners’ arguments regarding limited document access to be legally groundless.

The Government also responded to the issue regarding the recommendations of the Police Reform Acceleration Commission (KPRP). Hiariej noted that the KPRP was formed by the President through Presidential Decree Number 122/P of 2025 to evaluate and formulate strategic recommendations for police reform, the results of which were submitted to the President on 5 May 2026. However, the KPRP recommendations are merely one of the study materials and policy inputs. Meanwhile, the authority to form laws rests with the DPR and the President, as regulated by Article 20, paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Furthermore, the Government considers the petitioners’ objections regarding the expansion of police authority, the placement of active police members in civilian positions, and the extension of retirement ages to be matters of the substantive content of the Police Law. Therefore, disagreement with these norms cannot serve as a basis to declare the formation process formally flawed. “The issue of the compatibility of Law 5/2026 with MPR Decrees is a matter of conflict between norms of two regulations, which falls under substantive review, not formal review,” Hiariej explained.

Meanwhile, the DPR refuted the petitioners’ claims regarding the failure to publish the results of the Police Bill revision after its passage. DPR member Sarifuddin Sudding stated that the DPR had published the draft Bill through the official DPR website during the drafting and Level II Discussion stages so that the public could openly monitor the progress of the draft.

The DPR also stated that the Police Bill had undergone a harmonisation process at the Legislative Body before being established as a DPR initiative on 20 May 2026. Several materials in the Bill prepared by Commission III for the 2024-2029 period still accommodate drafts prepared by the previous DPR period.

Previously, the petitioners argued that the formation of the Police Law contravened Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Formation of Laws and Regulations, as well as DPR Regulations on Order. They argued that the law-making process ignored the principles of transparency, utility, effectiveness, and meaningful public participation.

In their petition, the applicants requested the Constitutional Court to declare that the formation of Law Number 5 of 2026 does not meet the provisions for law formation based on the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force. They also requested that Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the Police, as last amended by Law Number 6 of 2023, be reinstated.