Constitutional Court Ethics Council on Adies Kadir report: Do not assume we have already ruled

Jakarta (ANTARA) - The Chair of the Constitutional Court Ethics Council (MKMK), I Dewa Gede Palguna, has asked the House of Representatives’ Commission III not to assume that his body has already ruled on the report alleging ethical violations in the nomination of Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir.

Speaking during a public hearing convened by Commission III at the parliamentary complex in Senayan, Jakarta, on Wednesday, Palguna said the report concerning Adies Kadir was still at the preliminary examination stage, meaning it had not yet reached the substantive hearing phase.

“Please do not treat this as though we have already made a ruling. This is still a preliminary examination. The preliminary examination essentially leads to two outcomes: either it proceeds to a full hearing or a decision is issued directly,” he said.

During the hearing, members of Commission III broadly questioned the MKMK’s authority to examine the nomination of Adies Kadir as a constitutional justice proposed by the House. According to the Commission, this matter falls outside the MKMK’s remit.

In response, Palguna said that insofar as the exercise of the MKMK’s authority and the substance of the report were concerned, he could not provide answers at this stage as the matter pertained to the council’s independence.

He emphasised that no institution whatsoever should intervene in the MKMK’s authority, including the constitutional justices who appointed them. This, he said, formed part of the oath of office upheld by the three MKMK members.

“All the questions raised, if viewed from Commission III’s perspective, actually constitute an agenda we cannot disclose here because it already touches upon the substance of our authority, which we cannot convey as it concerns our independence,” he said.

The MKMK, he added, could only elaborate on the procedural aspects of processing the report.

“What we have conveyed is that we are currently still at the preliminary examination stage. We have not yet conducted the examination. It is only tomorrow that we will afford the reported justice [Adies Kadir] the right to be heard,” Palguna explained.

He further explained that the public report questioning Adies Kadir’s nomination was duly registered by the MKMK because it met the requirements stipulated in the procedural rules.

“There was also a question: ‘When is an application deemed to have failed to meet requirements?’ The answer is when the application is unclear. If there is clarity as to who the applicant is, who the reported justice is, and what evidence has been submitted, we have no grounds to refuse registration,” he said.

At the outset of the hearing, Commission III Chair Habiburokhman stated that the process of nominating Adies Kadir as a constitutional justice proposed by the House did not fall within the MKMK’s purview.

“Under Article 27A of Law Number 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court, the MKMK’s task is to uphold the code of ethics and code of conduct for constitutional justices. The selection and nomination process of Adies Kadir as a constitutional justice candidate proposed by the House is certainly not an object of the MKMK’s duties,” he said.

He argued that the House’s authority to select constitutional justices was not an anomaly but rather an integral part of the principle of checks and balances, as the 1945 Constitution provides that constitutional justices are nominated by three branches of power: the House of Representatives, the President, and the Supreme Court.

“In practice, the exercise of the House’s constitutional authority in selecting Adies Kadir as a constitutional justice candidate was carried out in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations,” he added.

It is known that 21 professors, lecturers, and legal practitioners belonging to the Constitutional and Administrative Law Society (CALS) filed a report against Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir with the MKMK.

Adies Kadir was reported because his nomination as a constitutional justice allegedly violated the code of ethics and code of conduct for Constitutional Court justices as well as prevailing legislation. The report was said to be filed in the interest of preserving the dignity and honour of the Court.

CALS representative Yance Arizona, speaking after submitting the report at the Constitutional Court building in Jakarta on Friday 6 February, said his group understood that the MKMK had historically examined reports only after an individual had already become a Constitutional Court justice.

Nevertheless, in this particular report, the complainants asked the MKMK to expand its jurisdiction to also correct unethical irregularities in the judicial selection process.

“We reported Adies Kadir because his selection not only contravened the law, but we also observed many improprieties in the process that constituted violations of several ethical norms,” Yance said.

The MKMK had previously begun examining the report on Thursday 12 February. The agenda of the inaugural closed hearing was to hear testimony from the complainants.