The Delegitimization of Constitutional Court Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 through Police Regulation Number 10 of 2025 within the Principle of Constitutional Supremacy
Main Article Content
Abstract
The issuance of Police Regulation Number 10 of 2025 has generated considerable controversy due to its alleged inconsistency with Constitutional Court Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, which removed the phrase “or not based on an assignment from the Chief of the Indonesian National Police” from the Elucidation of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2002 concerning the Indonesian National Police. This inconsistency is manifested in Article 3 paragraph (2) of Police Regulation Number 10 of 2025, which explicitly designates seventeen ministries and government agencies that may be occupied by active police officers without requiring their resignation or retirement from police service. Such inconsistency not only constitutes a violation of the final and binding nature of Constitutional Court decisions but also potentially infringes upon citizens’ constitutional rights to legal certainty and equal treatment before the law, as guaranteed by the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. This study aims to constitutionally examine the conformity of Police Regulation Number 10 of 2025 with the aforementioned Constitutional Court decision, as well as to formulate an ideal model for drafting police regulations within the framework of constitutional supremacy. This research employs a normative legal method using statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The findings indicate that Police Regulation Number 10 of 2025 is not aligned with Constitutional Court Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 and the principle of constitutional supremacy upheld in Indonesia. The issuance of this regulation is also considered inconsistent with the police reform agenda aimed at improving governance within the Indonesian National Police. This study emphasizes that the ideal practice of drafting implementing regulations requires strict compliance with and reference to Constitutional Court decisions, while positioning the Constitution as the primary normative foundation to strengthen the implementation of constitutional supremacy within Indonesia’s constitutional system.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License Terms
All articles published in Equality: Journal of Law and Justice are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0).
User Rights
Under this license, users are permitted to:
- Read and access the content freely
- Download and copy the material in any medium or format
- Distribute and share the work
- Adapt, remix, transform, and build upon the material
- Use the work for commercial and non-commercial purposes
Conditions
Users must comply with the following terms:
- Attribution — Proper credit must be given to the author(s), a link to the license must be provided, and any changes made must be indicated.
- ShareAlike — Any derivative works must be distributed under the same license (CC BY-SA 4.0).
- No Additional Restrictions — Users may not apply legal or technological measures that restrict others from exercising the rights granted by the license.
Author Rights
- Authors retain copyright and full publishing rights
- Authors grant the journal the right of first publication
- Authors may distribute their work elsewhere with acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal
Journal Rights
- The journal has the right to publish, distribute, and archive the articles
- The journal maintains the integrity of the version of record
Disclaimer
- The journal is not responsible for third-party reuse of the content
- The responsibility for the content lies entirely with the authors
License URL
For full details of the license, please visit:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
References
Aditya Fajar Indrawan. “Perpol 10/2025 Dinilai Langgar Putusan MK Dan Bentuk Pembangkangan Konstitusi,” 2025. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/perpol-10-2025-dinilai-langgar-putusan-mk-dan-bentuk-pembangkangan-konstitusi-lt693ed1cc5c31c/.
Anggun, Sekar, Gading Pinilih, Retno Saraswati, and Ahmad Muzaki. “Disobedience of The Constitutional Court’s Decision by The Supreme Court” 17, no. 2 (2022): 178–88. https://doi.org/10.15294/pandecta.v17i2.36196.
Chaterine, Rahel Narda, and Danu Damarjati. “Jimly Tunjuk Kesalahan Perpol 10/2025: Tak Menyebut Putusan MK,” 2025. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2025/12/17/21491521/jimly-tunjuk-kesalahan-perpol-10-2025-tak-menyebut-putusan-mk.
Dien, Fairuz Nasywa, Try Intan Febriana Magdalena, Yohanes Brilian, Jemadur, and Sherliana Ika Pratiwi. “Konstitusionalitas Penempatan Anggota Polri Pada Jabatan Sipil: Analisa Putusan MK Nomor 15/PUU-XX/2022.” Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis 6, no. 10 (2025): 1–20.
Eddyono, Luthfi Widagdo. “Penyelesaian Sengketa Kewenangan Lembaga Negara Oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi” 7, no. 3 (2010): 1–47. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/110648-ID-penyelesaian-sengketa-kewenangan-lembaga.pdf.
Ferdin, Alcika, Ridham Priskap, and Bustanuddin Bustanuddin. “Urgensi Constitutional Question Pada MK Dalam Upaya Melindungi Hak-Hak Konstitusional Warga Negara.” Limbago: Journal of Constitutional Law 2 (June 2022): 183–99. https://doi.org/10.22437/limbago.v2i2.18847.
Heriani, Fitri Novia. “Tak Sekadar Formalitas, Tim Percepatan Reformasi Polri Diharapkan Berikan Perubahan,” 2025. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/tak-sekadar-formalitas--tim-percepatan-reformasi-polri-diharapkan-berikan-perubahan-lt690f257341709/?page=all.
Johansyah, Johansyah. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Bersifat Final Dan Mengikat (Binding).” Solusi 19 (May 2021): 165–82. https://doi.org/10.36546/solusi.v19i2.359.
Kadirova, Sitora. “Legality, Legitimacy and Legitimation of Political Power: Theoretical Analysis” 3, no. X (2020): 122–24. https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/334254-legality-legitimacy-and-legitimation-of-0506475d.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
Lyandra, Naomi. “Polemik Perpol 10/2025: Mengapa Penempatan Polri Di 17 K/L Menuai Pro Kontra?,” 2025. https://kbr.id/articles/indeks/polemik-perpol-10-2025-mengapa-penempatan-polri-di-17-k-l-menuai-pro-kontra-.
Masoga, Ghaos. “Kedudukan Peraturan Kepolisian Dalam Struktur Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Indonesia,” 2021. https://fh.unram.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/GHAOS-MASOGA-D1A017105.pdf.
Maulidi, M Agus. “Menyoal Kekuatan Eksekutorial Putusan Final Dan Mengikat Mahkamah Konstitusi Questioning the Executorial Force on Final and Binding Decision Of” 16 (2019). https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1627.
Muin, Fatkhul. “Analisa Negara Hukum Indonesia: Peran Hukum Tata Negara Dalam Menjamin Supremasi Konstitusi” 6, no. 2 (2025). https://doi.org/10.33648/jtm.v6i2.1021.
Muttaqin, Labib, Sudjito Atmoredjo, and Andy Omara. “Relasi Pancasila Dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Sumber Hukum Di Indonesia,” 2024. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2115.
Nafian, Muhammad Ilman. “KPU Pastikan Laksanakan Hasil Putusan MK, Bakal Revisi PKPU,” 2023. https://www.idntimes.com/news/indonesia/kpu-pastikan-laksanakan-hasil-putusan-mk-bakal-revisi-pkpu-00-rgfwk-jwllnj?utm_source.
Nasir, Liana, Syamsul Rijal, and Muhamad Aksan Akbar. “Kedudukan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Pembentukan Undang-Undang Di Indonesia The Position of Constitutional Court Decisions In the Formation of Laws in Indonesia” 8, no. 2 (2025): 622–38. https://doi.org/10.26623/julr.v8i2.11333.
Putra, Antoni. “Sifat Final Dan Mengikat Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Pengujian Undang-Undang” 14, no. 3 (2022): 291–311. https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v14i3.425.
Rasji, Glenn Kevin Cailla, and Gabriela Gunawan. “Peran Mahkaman Konstitusi Dalam Menegakkan Prinsip Supremasi Konstitusi Di Indonesia” 2, no. 1 (2025): 650–57. https://doi.org/10.57235/sakola.v2i1.5884.
Sagran, Zacky Hadi Junior, Ario Pamungkas, Adinda Salsa Bilah, Pratu Elza Marthania, and Rihdatul Nabila. “Interaksi Norma, Konstitusi, Dan Penegakan Hukum Dalam Mewujudkan Keadilan Sosial: Analisis Keterkaitan Dan Kontribusi Terhadap Masyarakat Yang Berkeadilan,” 2025. https://digilib.esaunggul.ac.id/UEU-Article-5_1061/36911/aktivitas-sosial.
Saputra, Padil, Eddy Asnawi, and Bahrun Azmi. “Menakar Kekuatan Mengikat Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Perspektif Peraturan Perundang-Undangan” 1, no. 1 (2024): 21–27. https://doi.org/10.61761/seala.1.1.21-27.
Sumodiningrat, Aprilian. “Penguatan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Sebagai Politik Hukum Legislatif” 20, no. 2 (2023). https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2025.
Sundariwati, Ni Luh Dewi. “Judicial Activism: Diantara Melindungi Supremasi Konstitusional Atau Transisi Menuju Juristocracy,” 2024. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2135.
Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/101646/uud-no--
Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2002 tentang Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia (Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 2 Tahun 2022, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 4168), https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/44418
Peraturan Kepolisian Nomor 10 Tahun 2025 tentang Anggota Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia yang Melaksanakan Tugas di Luar Struktur Organisasi Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia, https://paralegal.id/peraturan/peraturan-kepolisian-negara-nomor-10-tahun-2025/
Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, https://s.mkri.id/public/content/persidangan/putusan/putusan_mkri_13410_1763008368.pdf