Observer: Perpol Kapolri According to the Supreme Court Decision, the Charge of Disobedience is Baseless

National Police Chief General Listyo Sigit Prabowo (Police Public Relations Department) Apple products

JAKARTA - The controversy over the issuance of Police Regulation (Perpol) Number 10 of 2025 dated December 9, 2025 continues to roll in the public sphere. The regulation signed by the National Police Chief General Listyo Sigit Prabowo has garnered harsh criticism from a number of circles, even accused of being a form of defiance against the constitution and President Prabowo Subianto. However, this view is considered unfounded.

Intelligence and geopolitical observer Amir Hamzah emphasized that based on the information he obtained, the issuance of the Perpol was not carried out unilaterally. According to him, the National Police Chief had consulted with the DPR and officially reported to President Prabowo before the regulation was enacted.

"The information I got, Perpol Number 10 of 2025 has gone through consultations with the DPR and has been reported to the President. So it is very wrong to call it a form of resistance by the National Police Chief against President Prabowo," Amir told reporters, Saturday, December 13, 2025.

Amir also strongly denied the assumption that Perpol violated the constitution or hit the Constitutional Court (MK) decision. He assessed that the accusations were more driven by political narratives than by a complete legal analysis.

According to him, Perpol Number 10 of 2025 is not in conflict with the Supreme Court Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025. The Supreme Court's decision, said Amir, must be read in a contextual and systematic manner, not cut in part.

"The Supreme Court's decision regulates the basic principles of professionalism and neutrality of the National Police. This Perpol is actually present as an internal technical instrument to ensure that the assignment of members of the National Police remains within the legal corridor and state supervision," he explained.

He added that in modern constitutional practice, internal regulations of law enforcement institutions are common, as long as they do not change the norms of law and do not hit constitutional principles.

Amir assessed that the framing that called this Perpol as "the President's objection" to President Prabowo was a forced narrative and had the potential to mislead the public. He emphasized that in the presidential system, the National Police Chief was not beyond the President's control.

"The National Police Chief is the President's assistant in the field of security. Structurally and politically, it is impossible for the National Police Chief to issue strategic policies without the President's knowledge," said Amir.

He even assessed that this issue was deliberately being circulated to create the impression that there was a rift between the President and the National Police Chief, something that he said was not in line with the facts on the ground.

The controversy over Perpol Number 10 of 2025 actually reflects a wider contestation of legal and political interpretations. On the one hand, there is public concern about the potential return of the dual function of the security apparatus. On the other hand, the state needs administrative flexibility to manage the resources of the apparatus effectively.

In this context, Perpol becomes a meeting point and a point of collision. The criticism that arises partly comes from historical trauma and caution against the power of the apparatus. However, without reading the substance and supervisory mechanism in full, the criticism risks turning into a normative opinion that is not based on legal facts.

Amir Hamzah reminded the public not to be trapped by emotional and political narratives alone. He encouraged public discourse to remain based on data, constitutional mechanisms, and the principle of checks and balances.

"Criticism is important in democracy, but criticism must be fair and fact-based. Don't let us destroy public trust in state institutions just because we misread the context," he concluded.