Constitutional Law Analysis in the View of Prof. Mahfud MD

In podcast forums, Prof. Mahfud MD has consistently asserted that the Constitutional Court's decision is final and binding on all state institutions, and therefore should not be circumvented through lower regulations. According to him, administrative regulations such as Perpol (Police Regulation) do not have the authority to reinterpret or reduce the binding power of the Constitutional Court's decision. Prof. Mahfud emphasized that the restriction of civil positions for active security forces is not merely a technical matter of employment, but a constitutional principle to maintain civilian supremacy and state neutrality. When active security forces are placed in civil positions through internal regulations, it potentially violates the principle of the hierarchy of laws and substantively weakens the constitution. In Prof. Mahfud's framework, if Perpol 10 of 2025 is interpreted only as a technical arrangement that remains subject to the Constitutional Court's decision, then it can still be justified. However, if Perpol is used to legitimize the placement of active police officers in non-security civil positions without resignation or retirement, then in terms of constitutional law, the regulation is materially flawed. This view affirms that the constitutional path is not through administrative adjustments, but through changes in legislation or re-examination of norms in the Constitutional Court.

Closing

Formally, Perpol 10 of 2025 is a legitimate legal product because it was issued by an authorized official. However, materially, its validity depends heavily on its conformity with the law and the decision of the Constitutional Court. In a state of law, no internal regulations should reinterpret or weaken carefully so as not to exceed constitutional limits. If there is ambiguity or potential deviation, regulatory revision or legal testing becomes a constitutional and democratic step. Ultimately, the polemic of Perpol 10 of 2025 serves as an important reminder that administrative order should not sacrifice constitutional principles, and the rule of law must remain paramount in the administration of the state.