By: Prof. Andre Yosua M

The enactment of Polri Regulation (Perpol) 10 of 2025 often sparks debate regarding the limits of police discretion within the framework of a state based on the rule of law.

This article aims to philosophically examine why the regulation does not conflict with Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025. Rather, it is a concrete form of operational implementation that remains grounded in constitutional values.

Legal Certainty vs. Substantive Justice

In legal philosophy, there is an eternal tension between rechtssicherheit (legal certainty) and gerechtigkeit (justice). Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 acts as the guardian of the constitutional line, establishing principles for protecting human rights and limiting state power.

Meanwhile, Perpol 10 of 2025 exists within the realm of expediency (doelmatigheid), where the Polri require technical regulations to carry out their function of maintaining public order without violating the legal corridors established by the Constitutional Court.

Harmonization

1. The Stufenbaulehre Principle (Hierarchy of Norms)

According to Hans Kelsen’s theory, lower-level legal norms must not contradict higher-level norms.

Argument: Perpol 10/2025 does not change the substance of constitutional rights ruled by the Constitutional Court. Instead, this Perpol fills a procedural gap so that the Constitutional Court’s orders can be technically implemented in the field. Without this Perpol, the Constitutional Court’s decisions would be mere paper tigers, difficult for lower-level officials to implement.

2. Discretion Theory and the Rule of Law Constitutional Court Decision 114

This decision places greater emphasis on tightening the use of force or authority.

Argument: Philosophically, Police Regulation 10/2025 limits the potential for abuse of power by providing measured guidelines.

This aligns with the principle of legality in a state governed by the rule of law, where every police action must have a clear regulatory basis, not simply the intuition of officers.

3. Protection of the Public Interest (Salus Populi Suprema Lex Esto)

While the Constitutional Court Decision focuses on protecting individual rights, Police Regulation 10/2025 balances this with the public interest.

Argument: There is no contradiction as long as the Police Regulation uses the Constitutional Court Decision as the ratio decidendi (legal reasoning) for drafting its articles.

The philosophy espoused is Orderly Justice: granting citizens their rights in accordance with Constitutional Court decisions, but in a manner that does not cause social chaos.

Police Regulation Number 10 of 2025 is an implementing instrument that aligns with the spirit of Constitutional Court Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025. Philosophically, the two are not mutually exclusive, but rather complementary:
The Constitutional Court provides direction and boundaries (legal morality).

Police Regulation provides the path and procedures (legal mechanisms). Thus, Perpol 10/2025 is a form of institutional compliance by the Polri with the supremacy of the constitution, as affirmed by the Constitutional Court.

Hopefully, this explanatory presentation can be considered both a leveler and a refrigerant, or freon, that can cool down the atmosphere of counter-argumentary debate that, in a contrario, appears impotent and absurd.

The Author is Criminal Law Expert/Postgraduate Lecturer at the Police Science College