Golkar Legislator Criticises MKMK for Investigating Justice Adies Kadir: Case Should Have Been Rejected

The House of Representatives’ Commission III held a meeting with the Constitutional Court’s Honour Council (MKMK) concerning the appointment of Adies Kadir as a Constitutional Court justice nominated by the House. One of the Commission III members, Soedeson Tandra, criticised the MKMK for following up on a complaint filed against the newly selected justice.

He initially raised concerns regarding formal procedures in the case. In his view, the MKMK should have rejected the case outright if it failed to meet formal procedural requirements.

“In my understanding as a practising advocate of many years, if a matter does not meet formal procedural requirements, then the first issue is that the case should be rejected, declared inadmissible. We would like an explanation on this,” said Soedeson during the Commission III meeting in Jakarta on Wednesday (18 February 2026).

Soedeson then questioned the MKMK’s jurisdiction. He argued that the MKMK can only examine the ethics and dignity of a Constitutional Court justice after they have been sworn in and are sitting on the bench, not before their inauguration.

“We are talking about the MKMK’s authority. In our understanding, the MKMK examines the ethics and dignity of a justice post factum, meaning the justice has already sat in session, has already been sworn in, and so forth, and only then is an examination conducted if a violation has occurred,” he said.

He therefore argued that the MKMK should have rejected the complaint questioning the selection process and inauguration of Adies Kadir as a Constitutional Court justice. He accused the MKMK of inconsistency in carrying out its duties.

“With all due respect, we see that the MKMK has been inconsistent on this matter. For example, the case of the Chief Justice who was reported but then dismissed on formal procedural grounds, yet when Adies Kadir was reported — and I will elaborate on why I believe this conflicts with or does not meet formal requirements — it was handled differently,” he said.

He further invoked the 1945 Constitution, noting that it grants the House of Representatives the authority to appoint Constitutional Court justices and that the House’s decisions cannot be challenged.

“Getting into the substance of the matter, we ask everyone here to note that the Constitution grants authority to three institutions to appoint constitutional justices. This is attributive authority that cannot be refused by anyone, meaning that when the House, the Supreme Court, and the government have put forward their nominees, they must be accepted as constitutional justices,” he asserted.

“Our question is: does the MKMK have the authority to assess all policies adopted by the House? This relates to what I mentioned earlier about formal procedural requirements, that the MKMK’s obligation to examine this falls within those formal requirements relating to jurisdiction. Therefore, we also observe that if this were to occur — if all of this were to happen — then none of the constitutional justices would meet the requirements,” he continued.

Soedeson also took issue with the MKMK’s public disclosures regarding the complaint against Adies Kadir. “You have stated that proceedings are closed, yet we observe that as MKMK Chairman you have been commenting to the newspapers. This contradicts what you have explained here, because this concerns individuals and, according to the rules and what you have stated, proceedings are closed, only becoming public when a decision is rendered. Yet we have read your comments in the press about this matter. Although they concern the process, it would be best to refrain from such commentary,” he added.