In Constitutional Court hearing, DPR asserts that a judge caught red-handed can be arrested without the Chief Justice's permission

Jakarta — The House of Representatives (DPR) has stated that a judge who is caught red-handed committing a criminal act may be arrested directly without the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court’s (MA) permission.

‘Therefore, if a judge is processed through an investigation following a catch-at-hand event, the Chief Justice’s permission is not required,’ said Commission III DPR member M. Nasir Djamil at a constitutional test hearing on Law Number 20 of 2025 on KUHAP at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, 19 May 2026.

Nasir explained that KUHAP 2025 distinguishes between the arrest mechanism and catch-at-hand. In a catch-at-hand situation, investigators can directly effect an arrest without an arrest warrant.

In his remarks, Nasir explained that Articles 98 and 101 KUHAP on the permissions for arrest and detention of judges are designed to safeguard judicial independence, not to grant legal immunity to judges. ‘The provision on the Chief Justice’s prior permission before arrest and detention of judges is a mechanism intended to ensure that legal proceedings against judges proceed objectively, professionally, and free from interference,’ he said.

According to him, judges may still be examined, investigated, prosecuted, and tried if they are suspected of committing a crime and if there is sufficient evidence.

Nasir also cited the arrest operation of the Chief Judge of Depok District Court by the KPK. ‘This shows that the process of seeking permission to arrest and detain judges from the Chief Justice does not impede the legal process as it should,’ Nasir said.

Earlier, at the preliminary examination hearing on 9 March 2026, the petitioners asked MK to test the constitutionality of Articles 98 and 101 KUHAP. The petitioners argued that the requirement for the Chief Justice’s permission before arresting and detaining judges is contrary to the 1945 Constitution. The petitioners contended that arrest and detention are coercive measures that restrict a person’s freedom and should be based on objective and subjective conditions, not on official position. The petitioners also argued that the phrases ‘arrest must be based on the Chief Justice’s permission’ and ‘detention must be based on the Chief Justice’s permission’ do not provide equal opportunity or legal protection for all citizens.