DPR Plenary Session Agrees Constitutional Court Ethics Council Has No Authority to Process Adies Kadir Appointment Complaint

A DPR plenary session agreed that the Constitutional Court Ethics Council (MKMK) does not have the authority to process complaints relating to the appointment of Adies Kadir as a Constitutional Court justice. The agreement was reached on the basis of deliberations previously conducted by DPR Commission III.

The plenary session was held at the Nusantara II Building in the parliamentary complex in Senayan, Jakarta, on Thursday (19 February 2026). The session was chaired by DPR Speaker Puan Maharani.

Puan began by explaining that the DPR leadership had received a letter containing the conclusions of a Commission III meeting held on Wednesday (18 February), which had included the MKMK on its agenda. Puan then read out Commission III’s conclusions.

“We wish to inform you that the leadership of the DPR has received a letter from the Commission III leadership, Number B/117/PW.01/2/2026, dated 18 February 2026, concerning the submission of the conclusions of a Commission III meeting to be read out at the plenary session,” Puan said.

One of Commission III’s key conclusions was that the selection of Constitutional Court justices by the DPR constitutes a constitutional mandate, and therefore the MKMK was deemed to have no authority to process complaints related to the selection of Adies Kadir as a Constitutional Court justice.

“Therefore, the Constitutional Court Ethics Council does not have the authority to follow up on complaints relating to the mechanism for selecting constitutional justices by all proposing institutions, including those carried out by the House of Representatives of the Republic of Indonesia in the case of Prof. Adies Kadir,” Puan said, reading out Commission III’s conclusions.

According to Puan, Commission III called on the MKMK to exercise its authority in accordance with existing regulations, including the enforcement of the code of ethics for sitting justices. Commission III also requested that the Constitutional Court clarify the duties and powers of the MKMK.

“Commission III of the DPR requests that the Constitutional Court Ethics Council remain consistent in exercising its authority as stipulated in Article 27A of Law Number 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court, which limits the duties of the Ethics Council solely to the enforcement of the code of ethics and conduct of sitting constitutional justices,” she said.

Puan then asked whether the plenary session could endorse Commission III’s conclusions. The participants responded in agreement.

“We now ask the honourable members of the House whether the conclusions of the Commission III meeting can be approved and followed up in accordance with the applicable mechanism?” Puan asked.

“Agreed,” the session participants replied.