Judicial Commission: Judges' Ethics Violations Up 100 Percent Compared to Last Year

The Judicial Commission (KY) has revealed a rising trend in violations of the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judge Behaviour (KEPPH) this year. The number of judges proven to have breached the code of ethics has increased by 100 per cent compared to last year.

“The increase in the number of sanction recommendations in the January 2026 period is significant compared to the same period in 2025, which was only 49. So, in terms of numbers, there is a significant rise of more than 100 per cent. In the first half of 2025 it was 49, and now it is 121,” said Abhan, Chair of the KY’s Judge Supervision and Investigation Division, at a press conference at the KY office in Central Jakarta on Thursday (30/7/2026).

Abhan explained that 121 judges were proven to have breached the code of ethics up to mid-2026. Of that number, 9 judges have been recommended for dishonourable dismissal.

“So the KY imposed sanctions on 121 judges who were proven to have violated the code of ethics and behavioural guidelines between January and June 2026,” he said.

Abhan detailed that 86 judges were recommended to receive light sanctions, 14 judges were recommended for moderate sanctions, 17 judges for heavy sanctions, and 4 judges were recommended to receive warnings. Light sanctions include verbal reprimands, written reprimands, and written statements of dissatisfaction.

Furthermore, heavy sanctions in the form of dismissal from office were imposed on 2 judges, suspension without pay for more than 6 months and up to 2 years was imposed on 2 judges, and demotion by one rank for a maximum of 3 years was imposed on 3 judges.

“Permanent dismissal with pension rights was imposed on 1 judge, and dishonourable dismissal on 9 judges,” he said.

Abhan then explained that 94 judges violated procedural law. This includes case administration and trial administration, manipulation of verdicts or alteration of trial facts, carelessness in drafting verdicts, errors in assessing evidence, legal considerations and trial facts, errors in applying the law, violations of the principle of impartiality, executions carried out contrary to execution orders, and deviant behaviour during court proceedings.