Tempo Magazine Cover Criticizes New Indonesian Police Regulation Allowing Active Officers to Hold Civilian Posts
By Administrator
Indonesia's Tempo magazine has sparked debate with its latest cover, accusing a new police regulation of reviving the controversial 'dwifungsi' dual-function role for the military and police, in potential defiance of a recent Constitutional Court ruling.
Indonesia's prominent news magazine Tempo released its December 15, 2025 edition with a provocative cover criticizing Peraturan Polri Nomor 10 Tahun 2025 (Police Regulation No. 10 of 2025). The regulation permits active police officers to occupy positions in 17 government ministries without resigning from their police duties.
The cover story highlights concerns that this rule ignores the Constitutional Court's Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025, issued in November 2025, which declared norms allowing dual roles for security institutions unconstitutional to preserve institutional neutrality.
Background on 'Dwifungsi'
The term dwifungsi refers to the historical dual-function doctrine prominent during Indonesia's New Order era under Suharto, where the military (and to some extent police) performed both security and socio-political roles, including holding bureaucratic positions. This practice was widely criticized for enabling excessive influence over civilian governance and was largely dismantled post-Reformation in 1998.
The Constitutional Court's recent ruling aimed to prevent the resurgence of such practices by mandating that active police and military personnel maintain neutrality and focus solely on security functions.
Details of the Controversial Regulation
Police Regulation No. 10/2025 reportedly expands opportunities for active-duty officers to serve in civilian ministries, a move supporters argue enhances coordination on security-related matters. However, critics, including Tempo, contend it effectively reinstates dwifungsi elements and directly contravenes the MK decision.
Potential legal consequences include challenges in administrative courts, which could lead to the regulation's annulment. Public discourse has intensified, with fears of eroding civilian control over government institutions.
Some legal observers argue the regulation may not explicitly violate the court's ruling, as it could be framed under specific exceptions. Nonetheless, the debate underscores ongoing tensions regarding the role of security forces in Indonesia's democratic framework.
Tempo's bold editorial stance reflects broader societal concerns about safeguarding reforms achieved after the fall of the authoritarian regime.