5 Logical Defects in the Perpol 10/2025 Criticism According to Boni Hargens

Illustration of the National Police (Antara)

JAKARTA - Political and legal analyst Boni Hargens assessed that the criticism delivered by the National Police Reform Committee against Police Regulation Number 10 of 2025 contained a number of fundamental weaknesses in legal reasoning. According to Boni, there are at least five errors in the argumentation that often arise in public debates regarding the regulation.

Boni conveyed this view in response to the Perpol 10/2025 controversy which regulates the assignment of members of the National Police outside the police organizational structure as a follow-up to the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 114/PUU-XXIII/2025.

"This debate should focus on the substance of legal norms, not on prejudices or sentiments against the Polri institution," Boni said in his statement, Friday, December 19.

The first argument highlighted by Boni is the tendency of criticism that is personal or attacking policymakers, not testing the content of regulations. According to him, some criticism highlights who issued the Perpol rather than dissecting whether the articles in it are contrary to the Constitutional Court's decision.

"Criticism like this does not help the public understand whether Perpol is legally wrong or not," he said.

Second, Boni assessed that there was excessive simplification by describing Perpol as if it were completely contrary to the Constitutional Court's decision. In fact, he said, a number of provisions in Perpol are actually an effort to translate the Constitutional Court's decision into an operational mechanism.

"If you read it in full, Perpol is not as simple as black and white as it is often described," he said.

The third argument highlighted is the imposition of extreme choices. Boni assessed that the debate was often directed as if there were only two options, namely to cancel Perpol completely or accept it completely even though it was considered problematic.

"In the practice of statehood, there is always room for correction and improvement. It does not have to be all canceled," said Boni.

Fourth, Boni assessed that the discussion of Perpol was often diverted to other issues that were not directly related to the tested legal norms, such as the history of the reform of the National Police or the issue of human rights violations. According to him, these issues are important, but irrelevant to assess the appropriateness of Perpol with the decision of the Constitutional Court.

"If what is discussed goes everywhere, the public will lose focus on the substance of the regulation," he said.

The fifth argument criticized by Boni is the use of an emotional approach by building public fear without a clear legal explanation. He assessed that such an approach actually weakened the quality of legal discourse.

"In the law of state administration, what is needed is an analysis of norms, not the carrying of emotions," he said.

Boni emphasized that the differences of opinion regarding Perpol 10/2025 should be placed in the framework of a rational and open legal discussion. According to him, the debate will be more constructive if it is directed at reading the articles one by one, not on assumptions and sentiments that have the potential to mislead the public.

"If we want legal reform to run well, debate must also be built in a healthy and argument-based way," explained Boni.

Boni emphasized that the differences of opinion between himself and a number of figures in the National Police Reform Committee, including Mahfud MD, should be placed within the framework of a healthy legal discourse.

He assessed that Perpol 10/2025 could be understood as an effort to clarify the internal mechanism for assigning members of the National Police outside the structure, in accordance with the Constitutional Court's decision, as long as it is read in its entirety and in proportion. According to him, the debate will be more constructive if it is focused on an analysis of article by article, not on personal attacks or leading public opinion through emotions.