CALS Accuses MKMK of Applying Double Standards in Adies Kadir Case

Constitutional and Administrative Law Society (CALS), a group of constitutional law and administrative law scholars, says there is a double standard in how reports of alleged ethics violations by Adies Kadir are handled by the Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MKMK). The MKMK read the verdict in Case Number 03/MKMK/L/ARLTP/02/2026 concerning a report of alleged ethics violations by Justice Adies Kadir, who was sworn in as a Constitutional Court judge on 5 March 2026. In its ruling, MKMK said it would not address the merits and declared it lacked authority to examine, try, or decide the report. One of the reporters and a lecturer of Constitutional Law at Gadjah Mada University, Yogyakarta, Yance Arizona, said the decision reveals MKMK’s inconsistency. He said MKMK seems to forget its own precedent. ‘Why is the standard different now? This is a double standard that is dangerous for the future of ethics monitoring in Indonesia,’ Yance said in CALS’ written statement after the MKMK ruling. Meanwhile CALS chair Bivitri Susanti said the ruling was predictable but still painful for common sense. ‘We are disappointed but not surprised. MKMK chose to play safe behind formalism. But note, the struggle does not end here. We will move promptly to administrative channels through PTUN,’ Bivitri said. The Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi decided not to continue with the case of alleged ethical violations against Justice Adies Kadir in the reading of the ruling on Thursday, 5 March 2026. In its decision, MKMK emphasised that it did not have jurisdiction to try the report detailing alleged violations that may be committed by Adies Kadir due to his connections with the Golkar Party and as a former Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives (DPR). MKMK member Ridwan Mansyur stated the commission’s task is to examine, assess, and evaluate the truth of facts presented by the reporters so that the alleged violation becomes proven or not. ‘Meanwhile, what is described in the reporters’ narrative cannot be categorised as conduct by a constitutional judge but as an assumption or prejudice based solely on the reporters’ concerns. Even if there are factual elements, the facts occur when the alleged judge was not yet a constitutional judge,’ Ridwan Mansyur read the legal and ethical considerations of MKMK’s Decision No. 03/MKMK/L/02/2026 on Thursday, 5 March 2026, quoting the official statement. Adies Kadir was reported by CALS, consisting of 21 constitutional law and state administration law academics, such as Susi Dwi Harijanti, Iwan Satriawan, Denny Indrayana, Zainal Arifin Mochtar, Titi Anggraini, Bivitri Susanti, and Feri Amsari. The reporter outlined alleged violations or acts by Adies Kadir as a judge who was reported before he served as a constitutional judge. Adies was alleged to have violated the ethics code and conduct while serving as a member of the House of Representatives (DPR). Ridwan explained that a person not yet serving as a constitutional judge, or after finishing service as a constitutional judge, is no longer bound by Sapta Karsa Hutama. In other words, such a person is not within the MKMK’s monitoring or enforcement jurisdiction as set out in Sapta Karsa Hutama. Ridwan said the alleged conduct by Adies, according to the reporter, could not be measured against the Ethics Code and Conduct of Constitutional Judges (Sapta Karsa Hutama). Therefore MKMK did not have authority to examine and try the report, both for prevention and enforcement of the Ethics Code and Conduct. ‘Because preventive actions and sanctions only operate when someone has become a constitutional judge,’ Ridwan concluded. Editor’s pick: Could Parliament convene the Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi