Unclear Petition: Constitutional Court Rejects Review of Police Law

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Constitutional Court (MK) has ruled that the petition to review Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police cannot be accepted because the petition is unclear or obscure (obscuur) and cannot be considered further.

“The operative part of the decision states that the petitioner’s request cannot be accepted,” said MK Chief Justice Suhartoyo during the verdict reading session at the MK Building Hall in Jakarta on Thursday.

The review of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police was filed by a student named Tri Prasetyo Putra Mumpuni, registered under case number 77/PUU-XXIV/2026.

In the petition, the petitioner challenged Article 11 of Law No. 2 of 2002, which, according to the petitioner, does not regulate the term of office of the Chief of Police, thereby causing uncertainty in the leadership periodisation within the Police, and potentially leading to uncontrolled personal power, which contradicts the principles of a rule-of-law state.

The Court examined the reasons for the petition; regardless of whether there is or is not an issue of the constitutionality of the norm requested for review, there is no clear and adequate explanation of the legal argumentation regarding the conflict between the norm requested for review and the articles used as the basis for the review, namely Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraph (3), and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

The Court also carefully examined the description of the formulation of the petitum number (2) requested by the petitioner, which actually does not align with the reasons for the petition that outline the problem and the absence of regulation regarding the Chief of Police’s term of office, causing uncertainty in the Police’s leadership periodisation that could lead to arbitrary actions as described by the petitioner.

“In this regard, the Court can understand the petitioner’s desire for periodisation in the Chief of Police’s position within the norm requested for review,” said MK Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

According to the Court, if the formulation of petitum number 2 were granted, it would render the entire norm invalid and eliminate the regulation on the requirements for appointing the Chief of Police.

Based on the explanation of the legal facts, the reasons for the petition are unclear, and the formulation of the petitum is contradictory and unusual as described above, leaving no doubt for the Court to declare the petitioner’s request unclear or obscure (obscuur).

“Thus, the petitioner’s request cannot be considered further,” said Saldi.