When law enforcers place themselves above the Constitution

Rather than safeguarding justice, Indonesia's legal instruments are increasingly being bent to serve institutional interests. The standoff between the Constitutional Court (MK) and the National Police over the assignment of active officers to civilian posts exposes not merely regulatory inconsistency, but a deeper disregard for constitutional authority.

On Nov. 13, the MK issued Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, explicitly prohibiting active police officers from holding positions outside the police force. The ruling was unequivocal that police personnel may occupy posts in ministries and state agencies only after resigning from active service or formally retiring.

The decision addressed long-standing public unease over the steady expansion of police influence in civilian governance. Far from abating, the practice has accelerated over the past three years, raising concerns about blurred boundaries between law enforcement and civilian administration.

In 2025 alone, 4,351 police personnel were assigned outside the National Police's organizational structure, a 13.8 percent increase from 2024 and a 27 percent rise compared to 2023. Roughly one-third of those seconded to ministries and government institutions were senior officers, underscoring a systematic pattern of embedding police personnel in strategically significant civilian posts.

Yet less than a month after the Court issued its ruling, National Police Chief Gen. Listyo Sigit Prabowo moved in the opposite direction. On Dec. 9, he issued National Police Regulation (Perpol) No. 10/2025, formalizing the placement of active police officers in 17 ministries and government institutions.

The regulation immediately drew sharp criticism. Legal experts and civil society groups argue that the Perpol is not merely problematic, but openly unconstitutional, amounting to an act of institutional defiance against the MK. By creating a regulatory workaround, critics say, the police leadership has effectively hollowed out the Court's authority.

The Police Reform Acceleration Commission, established by President Prabowo Subianto on Nov. 7, has so far failed to provide clarity or resolution. Nevertheless, chairman Jimly Asshiddiqie and commissioner Mahfud MD, both constitutional law experts and former chief justices of the MK, have bluntly described the Perpol as legally defective and inconsistent with higher-ranking laws. Jimly has gone further, urging the public to petition the Supreme Court to have the Perpol annulled.

The Perpol is also seen as clashing with Law No. 20/2023 on the State Civil Apparatus (ASN), which classifies the positions occupied by police officers in ministries and agencies as civilian ASN posts. The Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Ministry has maintained that it remains bound by the MK's ruling, which requires police officers to resign or retire before assuming such roles.

Despite mounting criticism, Listyo has shown little inclination to retreat. He has insisted that the Perpol will remain in force and has even suggested elevating it into a government regulation. The police chief has defended the policy by claiming it was formulated through consultations with relevant stakeholders, a justification that does little to address its constitutional deficiencies.

Listyo has received backing from several lawmakers on the House of Representatives' Commission III overseeing legal affairs, including Habiburokhman of Prabowo's Great Indonesia Movement (Gerindra) Party and Rudianto Lallo of the Nasdem Party. They argue that placing police officers outside the force is permissible so long as the roles are functionally connected to the National Police's mandate of law enforcement and public order.

Such arguments, however, run directly counter to the MK's interpretation and reinforce the impression that political convenience is being allowed to override constitutional discipline. This posture has exacerbated legal uncertainty at a time when public trust in the justice system is already fragile. When state institutions openly diverge in their response to binding constitutional rulings, the rule of law becomes contingent rather than authoritative.

The episode has also fueled speculation over whether Listyo's defiance reflects tacit approval from Prabowo. Ultimately, responsibility now rests squarely with Prabowo as the country's highest executive authority and the institutional head of the National Police. His response will determine not only the fate of the Perpol, but also whether constitutional supremacy remains a guiding principle of governance, or merely a formality to be sidestepped when inconvenient.