TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsConstitutional Court bans police from holding second job
The Constitutional Court ruled in a seven-to-two decision on Thursday that police officers are barred from holding additional positions in the government, a common practice in the current administration.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Police officers march on July 1, 2024, during a ceremony to commemorate the 78th anniversary of the National Police at the National Monument (Monas) Square in Jakarta. (Antara/Muhammad Adimaja)
T
he Constitutional Court ruled in a seven-to-two decision on Thursday that police officers are barred from holding additional positions in the government, a common practice in the current administration.
The petition was filed by a lawyer and a student challenging the Police Law, which contains an ambiguous provision conflicting with another provision that stipulates that a police officer must resign or retire from the service before taking on additional roles in the government.
Since President Prabowo Subianto took office late last year, the government has increasingly tapped active police and military officers to fill senior bureaucratic roles, reviving concerns among pro-democracy activists and analysts about the erosion of reforms that once sought to dismantle their involvement in civilian affairs.
In the ruling on Thursday, Justice Ridwan Mansyur said that while it was clear that the law mandated resignation or retirement from the police as a requirement for officers to hold additional offices, the challenged provision clashed with the law.
This provision in question, Ridwan said, was vague and “created legal uncertainty surrounding the appointment of police officers to positions outside the police force”.
The court ruled to revoke the provision, in favor of the petitioners.
The vote was seven to two, with Justice Daniel Yusmic Foekh joining Justice Guntur Hamzah in dissent.
