Rules Allowing Active Military and Police Officers to Lead the KPK are Challenged in the Constitutional Court, Deemed to Threaten Independence
A provision that is considered to open the possibility for active members of the TNI and Polri to serve as Chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) is being challenged in the Constitutional Court (MK).
The Petitioners argue that the rule is open to interpretation and has the potential to disrupt the independence of the anti-corruption agency.
The material review hearing of Article 29 paragraph i and paragraph j of the KPK Law was held on Wednesday (25/2). The Petitioners questioned the phrase which requires KPK leadership candidates to “release structural positions and/or other positions while serving as members of the KPK”.
Petitioner Syamsul Jahidin explained that the phrases “release” and “while serving as a member” do not provide legal clarity.
“The phrase creates multiple interpretations and opens the possibility for active TNI or Polri members to hold the position of KPK Chairman without having to resign or retire,” said Syamsul during the hearing.
According to the Petitioners, a similar problem also exists in Article 29 paragraph j of the KPK Law which states that KPK leadership candidates “must not practice their profession while serving as members of the KPK”.
This provision is considered not firm and has the potential to trigger conflicts of interest if active military or police officers lead the KPK.
Syamsul compared the provision with the Police Law which explicitly requires Polri members to resign or retire before holding positions outside the police force.
“If active Polri members can serve as KPK Chairman without resigning, it is contrary to the principles of neutrality, the principle of separation of powers, and threatens the independence of the KPK,” he emphasized.
He also referred to Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 which prohibits the placement of active Polri members outside the police structure.
“This decision is erga omnes and binds all state institutions. There should no longer be any interpretation that allows active Polri members to hold civilian positions,” said Syamsul.
On that basis, the Petitioners requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 29 paragraph i and paragraph j of the KPK Law to be in conflict with the 1945 Constitution and have no binding legal force.
In response to the request, Constitutional Court Judge M. Guntur Hamzah asked the Petitioners to refine their constitutional arguments.
“Decision 114 is indeed used as a basis, but it must be explained where the compatibility lies with the norm being tested,” said Guntur.
He also highlighted the meaning of the term “release” which was questioned by the Petitioner. “What is meant by ‘release’? Is it the same as ‘retirement’ or ‘resignation’? This must be explained conceptually,” he said. (Dev/P-3)