CALS to sue Adies Kadir's appointment as Constitutional Court judge at Jakarta Administrative Court (PTUN)

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SOCIETY (CALS), which groups academics and practitioners, will challenge the process of appointing Adies Kadir as a Constitutional Court judge at the Jakarta Administrative Court (PTUN). The move follows the Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MKMK)‘s decision to discontinue the ethics case against Adies Kadir on Thursday, 5 March 2026. The complainants’ counsel, Violla Reininda, said the appointment process was opaque and non-participatory and would burden the procedure and cast moral doubt from the outset, even though Adies Kadir has already become a constitutional judge.

“We remind ourselves that integrity cannot arise from a manipulatively run process. We will sue two aspects at PTUN: the Presidential appointment decision and the DPR’s actual, haphazard conduct in carrying out the selection,” said the Programme Manager of the Centre for Indonesian Legal Studies and Policy (PSHK), in a CALS written statement received by Tempo on Thursday, 5 March 2026.

Before filing the suit at PTUN, the legal team had already submitted administrative objections to the President and the DPR on 4 March 2026. “If these objections are ignored, the formal lawsuit will be filed at the Jakarta Administrative Court to cancel the legal validity of the office, which is believed to have arisen from an illegal process,” Violla said.

The complainants emphasise that this legal action is not aimed at a single individual but is part of an effort to safeguard the dignity of the Constitutional Court, ensure the process of filling the post of Constitutional Court judge follows the law, and prevent a harmful precedent in the governance of the constitutional judiciary in Indonesia.

One of the complainants, who is also a lecturer in State Administrative Law at Universitas Gadjah Mada in Yogyakarta, Yance Arizona, criticised MKMK’s inconsistency in not acknowledging Adies. He said MKMK appears to forget its own precedent.

In 2025, in a case concerning alleged aspects of a fake degree by Justice Arsul Sani, MKMK was willing to hear documents existing long before Arsul took office. Although MKMK then ruled that Arsul Sani did not commit degree fraud, the essential point is that MKMK could and did adjudicate the criteria used in the selection process for MK justices.

“Why has that standard changed now? This is a double standard that is dangerous for the future of ethics oversight in Indonesia,” Yance said.

MKMK read out the decision in Case No. 03/MKMK/L/ARLTP/02/2026 concerning the report of alleged ethics violations by Adies Kadir, who was sworn in on 5 March 2026. In its decision, MKMK chose not to proceed to the merits and stated it had no jurisdiction to examine, try, or determine the report.

MKMK emphasised that it has no authority to adjudicate the report detailing alleged violations that may be committed by Adies Kadir due to his links with Golkar and as a former Deputy Speaker of the DPR.

Member of MKMK Ridwan Mansyur stated that the MKMK’s task is to examine, assess, and evaluate the truth of the facts presented by the complainants so that the alleged violations become true or proven or not proven at all. “Meanwhile, what is set out in the complainants’ description cannot be categorised as conduct by a Constitutional Court judge but as assumptions or prejudices based solely on the complainants’ concerns. Even if some facts are factual, they occurred when the Respondent Judge had not yet held status as a constitutional court judge,” Ridwan read from the legal and ethical considerations of MKMK’s Decision No. 03/MKMK/L/02/2026 on Thursday, 5 March 2026, as quoted in the official statement.

Adies Kadir was reported by a group of people within the Constitution And Administrative Law Society (CALS). They include 21 individuals who are Professors and Lecturers of State Administration Law and Constitutional Law, such as Susi Dwi Harijanti, Iwan Satriawan, Denny Indrayana, Zainal Arifin Mochtar, Titi Anggraini, Yance Arizona, Bivitri Susanti, and Feri Amsari.

The complainants outline alleged violations or actions attributed to Adies Kadir as the Respondent Judge before taking up the post as a Constitutional Court judge. Adies is alleged to have breached the code of ethics and conduct while serving as a member of the DPR.

Ridwan explained that a person who has not yet served as a Constitutional Court judge, or after completing their tenure, is no longer bound by Sapta Karsa Hutama. In other words, such a person is not within the MKMK’s remit for monitoring or enforcing the Code of Ethics and Conduct as set out in Sapta Karsa Hutama.

Ridwan stated that Adies’s alleged conduct, as claimed by the complainants, cannot be measured against the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Constitutional Court Judges (Sapta Karsa Hutama). Consequently, the MKMK has no authority to examine or adjudicate the report for either prevention or enforcement of the Code of Ethics and Conduct.

“Because preventive or disciplinary steps operate only once someone has become a Constitutional Court judge,” Ridwan added.