Police and lawmakers defy calls for sweeping reforms

The National Police appear increasingly emboldened in their bid to consolidate power, as the House of Representatives signals growing support for the force despite persistent public demands for comprehensive reform. Even recent rulings by the Constitutional Court, intended to restrict active-duty officers from holding civilian posts, now seem likely to be circumvented by an unholy alliance of legislative and security interests.

Public scrutiny of police authority intensified following the death of Affan Kurniawan, an online motorcycle transportation driver who was fatally crushed by a police vehicle during a protest in Jakarta last August. His death sparked nationwide outrage, fueling calls to end police brutality, corruption and the culture of impunity.

These protests, among the largest of President Prabowo Subianto’s early administration, prompted the establishment of a commission in November to review police policies. However, the subsequent political response has suggested that institutional loyalty is being prioritized over public accountability. Among the popular aspirations regarding police reforms is to restructure the law enforcement agency under a ministry’s supervision, rather than directly answering to the President.

On Jan. 27, House Commission III overseeing law enforcement reported that urgent improvements were necessary, yet the House’s consensus appeared to directly contradict the spirit of reform. Lawmakers from all the eight factions concluded that placing active-duty police in civilian positions does not violate the Constitution, a stance that defies a specific mandate from the nation's highest court.

In Decision No. 114/2025, the Constitutional Court explicitly prohibited active officers from holding civilian posts unless they first resign or retire, seeking to resolve legal ambiguities that previously allowed for "legal uncertainty".

This defiance of the court marks a significant erosion of judicial supremacy. When the House and the police seek ways to side-step mandates through secondary regulations, they signal that constitutional boundaries are negotiable. If the highest court’s decisions can be ignored, the judiciary loses its ability to protect the democratic framework from the whims of political elites.

The expansion of police roles into 17 ministries and state institutions further suggests a resurgence of a "security approach" reminiscent of the military "dual-function" logic of the past. By placing active-duty officers in civilian administrative roles, the government risks "securitizing" civil service tasks, prioritizing command-and-control over transparency. For the average citizen, this means that civilian matters, from maritime affairs to social welfare, may increasingly be viewed through the lens of national security rather than public service.

This shift is exacerbated by the breakdown of legislative oversight. Instead of acting as a watchdog, the House has increasingly acted as a shield for the force. On Jan. 26, National Police chief Gen. Listyo Sigit Prabowo firmly opposed proposals to place the police under ministerial supervision, stating he would rather resign than see the force cease reporting directly to the President.

This stance was immediately championed by Habiburokhman, chair of House Commission III from the ruling Gerindra Party, who argued that independent bodies like the National Police Commission (Kompolnas) lack the authority to oversee the force. By centralizing oversight within a sympathetic political body like the House, the mechanism for holding officers accountable becomes dangerously opaque.

The consequences of this political compromise reach far beyond the halls of government, creating a "chilling effect" on civil liberties. When the state responds to tragedies like the death of Affan by further consolidating police power, it sends a clear message: the Reform project, which sought to separate security forces from political life, is in retreat.

Gen. Listyo now holds the record as the longest-serving National Police chief in the post-Reform Era. His potential tenure until 2027 is seen by critics as a calculated move to safeguard elite political interests. Ultimately, if the House continues to prioritize its alliance with the police over its duty to the electorate, the trajectory of Indonesian democracy points toward a hybrid model of governance, one where security institutions are indispensable political partners rather than neutral public servants.