President Prabowo Subianto has responded to public proposals regarding the police. These proposals emerged during recent demonstrations. The President has established the Commission for the Acceleration of National Police Reform (KPRP). Currently, the KPRP, chaired by Prof. Jimly Asshiddiqie, is actively carrying out its duties, namely holding hearings with various parties—including Peradi—to gather input. This article represents one of the key points of Peradi’s input to the KPRP. Investigations and inquiries conducted by the National Police should be part of the exercise of judicial power under the 1945 Constitution, rather than part of the National Police’s core duties; consequently, they should no longer be referred to as criminal investigators but as judicial police, as is the case in the Netherlands and France.
In addition to the National Police’s role as investigators—which needs to be reformed—there are certainly many other issues. PERADI did not address these. Whether this is truly an issue that the KPRP needs to address must first be determined. After all, answering the wrong question will not lead to the correct answer. However, PERADI’s input is based on the Constitution and is therefore highly normative; it should be taken into consideration in the reform process.
In its proposal to the KPRP, in addition to drawing on empirical experience, Peradi also cited a study by the Setara Institute, which was conducted using diagnostic research methods. The results of that study were published last year in a book titled “Designing the Transformation of the Indonesian National Police to Support Indonesia’s 2045 Mission.” In that study, the Setara Institute identified 130 key issues within the Indonesian National Police. These issues represent a synthesis of opinions from 167 experts across various fields, including government agencies and the Indonesian National Police.
The final conclusion of the study states, “In summary, the Indonesian National Police currently faces serious challenges in the areas of law enforcement—which remains undemocratic—limited integrity, unresponsive public service, and institutional governance that has yet to undergo transformative change; consequently, the current police reform has not yet yielded significant changes. Although there have been sporadic changes through the modernization of public services, the National Police still faces systematic challenges in contributing to the strengthening of resilience and governance, as emphasized in Development Pillar 4 of the 2045 Vision.”
In addition, the study also addressed the structure of the Indonesian National Police (Polri) in relation to the state administration, and the research indicated that four main perspectives have emerged: (1) the Polri under the Ministry of Home Affairs, (2) the Polri under a new ministry, such as a Ministry of National Security, (3) the Polri remaining under the President, and (4) the Polri remaining under the President with the institutional capacity and authority of the National Police Commission (Kompolnas) strengthened. Regarding this matter, we, as an advocacy organization, will not discuss it further here, unless asked to provide our opinion.
However, this article will focus only on “the fact that the Indonesian National Police currently faces serious challenges in terms of law enforcement—which is not yet democratic—and limited integrity.” In other words, it will examine how the Indonesian National Police’s investigative and inquiry functions, along with its other functions, should operate in accordance with the 1945 Constitution.
First of all, pursuant to Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution in conjunction with Law No. 48 of 2009 (the Law on Judicial Power), even though the National Police, prosecutors, and attorneys each have their own sectoral laws, the Law on Judicial Power requires that they operate within an “integrated system.”
Specifically, the integrated system referred to is as stipulated in Article 38 of the Law on Judicial Power. The paragraph states: (1) In addition to the Supreme Court and the judicial bodies under it…, there are other bodies whose functions are related to judicial power. The meaning of this paragraph is that (2) Functions related to judicial power as referred to in Paragraph (1) include: a. investigations and inquiries; b. prosecution; c. enforcement of judgments; d. provision of legal services; and e. out-of-court dispute resolution.
Furthermore, Paragraph (3) stipulates that provisions regarding other bodies whose functions are related to judicial power shall be regulated by law. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Law on Judicial Power states that the term “other bodies” refers, among others, to the police, the public prosecutor’s office, attorneys, and correctional institutions. The Judicial Power Act explicitly and unequivocally states, “b. that in order to realize an independent judiciary and a clean and authoritative judicial system, it is necessary to establish an integrated judicial system.”
However, under the current National Police Law, the functions of investigators and law enforcement officers remain separate. This is because there are still provisions that favor one over the other. Consequently, the establishment of a clean and authoritative judiciary—which is both a constitutional mandate and a responsibility of the National Police—is also hindered. Therefore, this must be addressed as part of the reform process to ensure that a “clean and authoritative” judiciary can be realized, including during the investigation and inquiry stages.
Thus, the current National Police Law, which governs the National Police’s role as a law enforcement agency—and which still reflects “the primary duties of the national police” rather than its role as part of the judiciary—needs to be reformed. In other words, the National Police’s investigative and inquiry functions must be redefined not in the context of “ensuring domestic security,” but in the context of fulfilling its role as part of the judiciary.
Therefore, it is essential to ensure that in future reforms of the National Police, the duties and functions of investigation and inquiry align with the integrated judicial system as intended by the 1945 Constitution. In the future, National Police investigators will no longer act as detectives but rather as “judicial police,” equivalent to the terms police judiciaire in France and gerechtelijk politie in the Netherlands. This aligns with the concept of “integrated judiciary” as defined in the Law on Judicial Power, which is derived from the 1945 Constitution.
Luhut MP Pangaribuan, Chairman of the National Executive Board of Peradi and Professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia
This article was published in Kompas on December 16, 2025.
Available at the link : (https://www.kompas.id/artikel/reformasi-polri-penyelidik-dan-penyidik-polri-seharusnya-polisi-yudisial)