Adies Kadir's Appointment as Constitutional Judge Challenged in Administrative Court

A group of law academics and students have filed a lawsuit against the appointment of Adies Kadir as a Constitutional Court judge at the Jakarta State Administrative Court (PTUN). After being submitted online via e-court on 18 June 2026, the case, registered as Number 214/G/2026/PTUN.JKT, held its first hearing with a preparatory examination agenda on Tuesday, 30 June 2026. The lawsuit was filed by 27 parties, 19 of whom are professors and lecturers in constitutional law and state administrative law who are members of the Constitutional and Administrative Law Society (CALS). The other 8 parties are student law communities from various universities in Indonesia, including the Moot Court Community (MCC) of UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta; the Constitutional Law Student Association of the Faculty of Law, UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta; the Student Executive Board of the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia; and the Law School Debate Community (LSDC) of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta. Also joining are the Legal Writing Community of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta; the Moot Court Community Petita of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta; the Constitutional Studies Community of UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta; and the Speech and Law Debate Society of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Gadjah Mada. Herdiansyah Hamzah, a lecturer at Mulawarman University’s Faculty of Law and one of the plaintiffs, stated that the lawsuit, directed at the House of Representatives (DPR) and the President, is a follow-up to an ethical complaint previously filed with the Constitutional Court’s Ethics Council. Bivitri Susanti, another plaintiff representing CALS, explained that the Ethics Council acknowledged the controversy surrounding the brief and opaque selection process for Adies Kadir. However, the council’s ruling stated it lacked the authority to adjudicate the matter, prompting the plaintiffs to turn to the PTUN, which they believe has the jurisdiction to review and decide on administrative actions. Bivitri stated that the lawsuit targets two objects: the factual action of the DPR’s nomination process for Adies Kadir and Presidential Decree Number 9/P of 2026 concerning the dismissal and appointment of a Constitutional Court judge, which was issued based on that DPR proposal. She argued both objects suffer from serious legal defects, particularly regarding procedural and substantive aspects that violate laws and regulations and the General Principles of Good Governance (AUPB). She emphasised that the selection process was clearly conducted without transparency, participation, objectivity, and accountability, despite these being mandated by Articles 19 and 20 paragraph (2) of the Constitutional Court Law. Denny Indrayana, another CALS representative acting as legal counsel, stated the lawsuit is a continued advocacy effort to safeguard the honour of the Constitutional Court following the Ethics Council’s decision. He stressed that a Constitutional Court judge must not only be academically sound but also morally and ethically unblemished and free from conflicts of interest, as this will directly affect future court rulings. The Constitutional Court’s Ethics Council had previously read its decision on 5 March 2026 regarding the alleged ethical violation report against the newly inaugurated judge Adies Kadir. The council chose not to enter the main case and declared it lacked the authority to examine, adjudicate, or decide on the report. Council member Ridwan Mansyur stated that the council’s duty is to examine and evaluate the truth of alleged violations, but the report’s descriptions could not be categorised as conduct by a constitutional judge, as any factual matters occurred before the reported individual assumed the status of a constitutional judge.