Constitutional Review of Police Placement in Civil Posts: MK 256/PUU-XXIV/2026

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia registered case 256/PUU-XXIV/2026 as a material review of Law Number 5 of 2026, the third amendment to Law Number 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police. The applicant, Andika Adipura, challenged the elucidation of Pasal 28A ayat (2) together with Pasal 28A ayat (3) and Pasal 28A ayat (4) of that law, the cluster of provisions that governs when serving police officers may occupy positions outside the police organisation. The decision record carries a date of 30 July 2026.

Legal Reasoning

The petition recorded in the decision builds its test on an earlier ruling of the Court, Putusan Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025. In paragraph [3.12.2] of that decision, as reproduced in the record, the Court held that the constitutional design for police participation in state administration rests on Pasal 30 ayat (4) of the 1945 Constitution, expressed in Pasal 10 ayat (3) of MPR Decree Number VII/MPR/2000 and in Pasal 28 ayat (3) of Law Number 2 of 2002, both of which provide that a police officer may occupy a position outside the police only after resigning or retiring from police service. The Court stated that this formulation requires no further interpretation, and identified the positions in question as those bearing no connection to policing, referring to the managerial and non managerial civil service categories set out in Pasal 13 of Law Number 20 of 2023 on the State Civil Apparatus.

Paragraph [3.12.3] of the same decision supplied the second element of the test. Drawing on points 176 and 177 of Annex II to Law Number 12 of 2011 in conjunction with Law Number 13 of 2022, the Court described the elucidation of a statute as the official interpretation of the legislature, confined to explaining words, phrases, sentences, or foreign terms used in the norm. An elucidation may not render the norm it explains unclear, and may not contain a new norm. Applying that standard, the Court had upheld the part of the earlier elucidation that merely explained the operative text, while striking the phrase that neither clarified the operative text nor preserved the condition of resignation or retirement, holding it contrary to Pasal 28D ayat (1) of the Constitution.

From those two paragraphs the applicant derived a two stage parameter for testing an elucidation: first, whether the phrase merely describes or reinforces the norm in the body of the statute; second, whether it instead blurs or widens that norm and so produces the legal uncertainty that Pasal 28D ayat (1) forbids. Applied to the elucidation of Pasal 28A ayat (2), the argument is one of scope. The operative text lists three fields in which an outside position may be treated as connected to police functions: maintenance of public security and order; protection, shelter, and service to the community; and law enforcement. The elucidation of letters a, b, and c introduces each list of government affairs and institutions with the phrase antara lain, meaning among others, which in the petition converts a closed enumeration in the operative text into an open one capable of widening without any amendment of the statute.

The petition supported that reading with the drafting conventions in the same annex. Points 90 and 91 provide that the conjunction dan in a tabulated list marks the list as cumulative and closed, a function the record notes the Court had applied in Putusan Number 151/PUU-XXII/2024. Because the elucidation places antara lain, an open marker, in the same sentence as a list closed by dan, the applicant argued that it carries two inconsistent technical signals at once. The clarity of formulation principle in Pasal 5 huruf f of Law Number 12 of 2011 was invoked on the same point. The petition framed the three challenged provisions as one problem, described in the record as a failure to supply an objective measure by which a citizen can understand and test the boundary between police posts and civil administrative posts.

The Ruling

The operative part of the decision states: Menyatakan permohonan Pemohon tidak dapat diterima. The application of the applicant is declared inadmissible.

The Court found that the evidence the applicant submitted, including with the revised petition, had not been stamped with meterai, so the petition did not meet the formal filing requirements of Pasal 10 ayat (4), Pasal 12 ayat (3) and Pasal 67 ayat (1) huruf a of Constitutional Court Regulation Number 7 of 2025. An inadmissibility ruling on that ground closes the case without the Court examining the constitutionality of the provisions that were tested. The record contains no order annulling or reinterpreting the elucidation of Pasal 28A ayat (2), nor any order touching Pasal 28A ayat (3) or Pasal 28A ayat (4), which continue to operate as enacted. The decision record carries no dissenting opinion.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.id.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

• Consult the official regulation text from government sources
• Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
• Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Correction (27 September 2026): this post was checked against the official text of MK 256/PUU-XXIV/2026 and corrected. Also 1 minor correction (wording, dates, links). Report errors to contact@crpg.id.