DPR at Constitutional Court Hearing: A Judge Caught in an OTT May Be Arrested Immediately Without the Permission of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

The Indonesian House of Representatives has stated that a judge who is caught in an arrest operation (OTT) may be arrested immediately without needing the permission of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (MA). This was conveyed during a constitutional court hearing on the material test of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) at the Constitutional Court on Tuesday, 19 May. The hearing for case number 89/PUU-XXIV/2026 tests Articles 98 and 101 of Law Number 20 of 2025 on KUHAP, which regulate that arrest and detention of judges must obtain the permission of the MA Chief Justice. Member of the III Commission of the DPR, M. Nasir Djamil, who attended remotely on behalf of the DPR, said the permission rule was created to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, not to grant legal immunity to judges. ‘The provision on permission from the MA Chief Justice before arrest and detention of judges is a mechanism designed to ensure the judicial process proceeds objectively, professionally, and free from interventions that could undermine judicial independence,’ Nasir told the hearing. However, the DPR emphasises that the permission mechanism does not apply in cases of arrest by hot pursuit. Nasir explained that KUHAP 2025 differentiates between ordinary arrest and hot‑pursuit incidents. ‘If a judge is subjected to prosecution following a hot‑pursuit, then the Chief Justice’s permission is not required,’ he said. He noted that a judge can still be prosecuted like any other citizen if there is sufficient evidence. ‘If there is sufficient evidence and the legal process is conducted in accordance with statutory provisions, a judge may still be examined, investigated, charged, and tried,’ he added. Nasir also cited the arrest of the Ketua Pengadilan Negeri Depok by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which proceeded swiftly despite there being a coordination mechanism with the Supreme Court. ‘The KPK leadership contacted the MA Chief Justice and, one hour after the request, the detention order was issued. This demonstrates that the permission process does not obstruct the legal process as it should,’ he said. Meanwhile, the applicants, Martin Maurer and Leonardo Olefins Hamonangan, argued that the Chief Justice’s permission rule could create unequal treatment before the law. They questioned why special protection is afforded only to judges, while other law enforcement officers such as prosecutors, police, and advocates do not receive similar treatment. In their view, arrest and detention should be based on evidence and legal requirements, not on one’s office. They argued that the provision could conflict with the principle of fair legal certainty under Article 28D(1) of the 1945 Constitution because it grants different treatment to certain officials.