<![CDATA[General Background: The placement of active military officers in civilian positions has been shaped by Indonesia’s post-Reform legal framework and the separation of military and civilian institutional functions. Specific Background: The amendment of Law No. 34 of 2004 through Law No. 3 of 2025 expanded the civilian positions that may be occupied by active military personnel, while Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 addressed restrictions on active police officers serving in civilian positions. Knowledge Gap: Previous studies have examined military involvement in civilian affairs, the historical dual function of ABRI, and public responses to the amendment of the TNI Law, but the relevance of the Constitutional Court decision to restrictions on civilian positions for active military personnel requires further legal examination. Aims: This study examines the legal position of active military personnel in civilian positions and the relevance of Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 to the TNI. Results: Using normative legal research with statutory and conceptual approaches, the study finds that the Constitutional Court decision cannot be directly applied to the TNI because the TNI and Police are governed by different legal frameworks. Novelty: The study compares the legal foundations governing civilian positions for the two institutions and examines the decision as an argument for reviewing the latest TNI Law. Implications: The findings provide a legal basis for considering the consistency of constitutional review concerning civilian positions held by active state security institutions. Key Findings Highlights: The TNI and Police operate under different statutory frameworks governing civilian appointments. Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 directly concerns the Police rather than the TNI. The decision may serve as an argument in constitutional review of the latest TNI Law. Keywords: Active Military Officers, Civilian Positions, Constitutional Court, TNI Law, Judicial Review]]>
