<![CDATA[Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 marked a significant turning point in the history of Indonesian security reform by reaffirming the principle of civilian supremacy over the Indonesian National Police (Polri) and the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI). This decision prompted comparative legal discourse with the long-entrenched doctrine of civilian control over the military/police in the United States constitutional law system. This article aims to comparatively analyze the normative framework and implementation of the two systems, identifying similarities, differences, and opportunities for adopting universal values into the Indonesian legal system post-ruling. The method used is normative legal research with a comparative law approach and a conceptual approach. The results show that although both systems share the same philosophical foundation, namely the principles of constitutional democracy and the accountability of security institutions to the people, there are substantial differences in implementation mechanisms, oversight structures, and legal traditions. The United States operates a system of civilian control through three integrated branches of power supported by mature legislation such as the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Posse Comitatus Act, while Indonesia is still in the stage of normative consolidation following the Constitutional Court decision. This research also identifies the phenomenon of erosion of civilian control that can occur even in advanced democracies, as well as the risk of erosion by deference, where civilian authorities rely too heavily on military judgment in strategic decision-making. Constitutional Court Decision No. 114/PUU-XXIII/2025 requires comprehensive legislative follow-up to ensure the effective functioning of the civilian control doctrine, by adapting, rather than simply adopting, the United States model to suit Indonesia's socio-legal context.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
