Judicial Commission monitors judge's conduct in gratification case involving NTB DPRD members

Mataram, Indonesia – The Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia (Komisi Yudisial RI) is monitoring the behaviour of a judge in a case alleging gratification involving three members of the West Nusa Tenggara Province’s Regional House of Representatives (DPRD NTB) who are currently being tried in the Corruption Court at the Mataram District Court.

‘If there are allegations of a judge’s ethical code violation, we will follow up with an in-depth review of the monitoring results,’ said Abhan, head of the Judge Supervisory and Investigation Division of KY RI, when approached at the Mataram District Court on Friday.

Regarding two designation letters from NTB High Court signed by Acting Chief of NTB High Court Gede Ariawan with differing narratives but the same reference number and date, No: 40/Pen.Pid/2026/PT MTR, dated 4 May 2026, Abhan said this falls outside KY’s authority. ‘If it’s a matter outside KY’s authority. Our focus is whether there is potential violation of ethical codes and judges’ conduct guidelines,’ the former head of Bawaslu RI (2017-2022) said.

The NTB High Court’s issuing of two designation letters has been acknowledged by the Mataram District Court. Spokesperson Kelik Trimargo confirmed the existence of two designation letters. ‘Yes, that’s not a problem; there was a correction, hence a second letter appeared,’ he said.

However, the second letter, as a correction, stated that the request to extend the defendants’ detention was denied on the grounds that the punishment for gratification crimes under the prosecutors’ indictment carries a maximum of nine years in prison. The basis for this concerns Article 605 of the new Indonesian Criminal Code (KUHP) and the new Criminal Procedures Code (KUHAP) Article 107(1)(b) and (2) of Law No. 20 of 2025.

Based on the second letter, the panel of judges chaired by Dewi Santini issued a decision suspending detention for the three defendants since 14 May 2026. The panel also reminded the defendants to attend the trial despite not being in custody.