Constitutional Court Ruling: KPK Leaders Not Required to Resign Permanently from Previous Positions, Mere Inactivity Suffices

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - The Constitutional Court (MK) has partially granted the petition for judicial review against Article 29 letters i and j of Law Number 19 of 2019 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK). The MK states that KPK leaders are not required to permanently relinquish their previous positions or professions, but rather to maintain inactive status during their tenure. The decision was read by MK Chief Justice Suhartoyo during the verdict pronouncement session Number 70/PUU-XXIV/2026 at the MK Building. In its operative part, the MK declares that the word “relinquish” in Article 29 letter i and the phrase “not carry out” in Article 29 letter j are contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally lack binding legal force insofar as they are not interpreted as “inactive”. Constitutional Justice Guntur Hamzah stated that the position of KPK leadership is the result of a selection based on competence and professionalism, so it is inappropriate to require permanent severance from the original profession. “The position of KPK leadership is more appropriately understood as a temporary public assignment,” Guntur explained. “It remains open to the possibility of returning to the original position after the tenure ends,” he continued. Nevertheless, the MK emphasises that during their tenure, KPK leaders must remain inactive from their previous positions or professions to safeguard independence and avoid conflicts of interest. He touched on the main issue in this case being whether the obligation to relinquish positions and not carry out professions constitutes a proportional restriction on citizens’ constitutional rights. According to the Court, public positions cannot be treated uniformly. There is a difference between positions resulting from elections and those from selections. The Court assesses that the purpose of the previous regulations, namely to prevent conflicts of interest and multiple positions, remains constitutional. However, the “relinquish” norm is deemed not to provide legal certainty and potentially leads to different interpretations. The MK concludes that the provisions in Article 29 letters i and j remain constitutional as long as they are interpreted as an obligation to be inactive, not to permanently relinquish positions.