Constitutional Court Ethics Council Continues Processing Adies Kadir Complaint Despite DPR Objections

The Constitutional Court’s Ethics Council (MKMK) Chairman I Dewa Gede Palguna has affirmed that the council has its own terms of reference in carrying out its work, pushing back against the House of Representatives (DPR) which declared the MKMK has no authority to follow up on a complaint regarding the selection process of Adies Kadir as a Constitutional Justice.

“What is clear is that substantively, our reference point is the Sapta Karsa Hutama [the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct for Constitutional Justices]. For procedural matters, we refer to Constitutional Court Regulation Number 11 of 2024. We cannot deviate from that. Whatever the MKMK’s eventual decision, that is our reference — not other matters,” Palguna said when contacted on Monday (23 February).

Palguna confirmed the MKMK would proceed with processing the complaint, stating that the council would convene a meeting on the results of its preliminary examination on 25 February.

Adies Kadir was reported to the MKMK over alleged ethics violations. The Constitutional and Administrative Law Society (CALS) filed the complaint requesting the MKMK remove Adies Kadir from his position as Constitutional Justice. CALS stated that the selection process leading to Adies’s appointment as a Constitutional Justice was riddled with irregularities, citing numerous aspects deemed improper and in breach of procedure.

The DPR, through its 14th Plenary Session marking the close of the third sitting period, announced that the MKMK had no authority to follow up on the complaint against Adies. The outcome of the session was set out in a letter from the leadership of Commission III, numbered B/117/PW.01/2/2026 dated 18 February 2026, conveying the conclusions of Commission III’s meeting to be read at the plenary session.

“Therefore, the MKMK does not have the authority to follow up on complaints related to the mechanism for selecting constitutional justices by all nominating institutions, including that carried out by the DPR regarding Prof. Dr. Ir. Adies Kadir, S.H, M.Hum,” Speaker Puan Maharani read from the session’s conclusions.

Commission III called on the MKMK to remain consistent in exercising its authority under Article 27A of Law Number 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court. The law limits the MKMK’s duties to enforcing the code of ethics and conduct of sitting Constitutional Justices.

Prior to this, Commission III had invited Palguna to attend a meeting to discuss the matter on Wednesday (18 February). During the meeting, several Commission III members criticised Palguna for not disclosing the status of the complaint regarding Adies Kadir’s appointment as a DPR-nominated Constitutional Justice.

They demanded Palguna disclose the complaint. However, Palguna refused, insisting that the confidentiality of the complaint’s substance was integral to the MKMK’s independence. He declared firmly that he would rather resign than reveal the details of the complaint before members of parliament.

“If that is what you are asking, I would rather request to be dismissed from the Ethics Council. Seriously, because that is the crown jewel of the Ethics Council, sir,” Palguna said during the meeting.