KPK Deems MK's Decision Correct: KPK Leaders Do Not Need to Relinquish Previous Positions
The Constitutional Court (MK) has ruled that KPK leaders do not have to relinquish their previous positions. The KPK considers this decision to be appropriate.
“The KPK respects and appreciates the Constitutional Court’s decision, which we deem appropriate, proportional, and providing legal certainty,” said KPK spokesperson Budi Prasetyo to reporters on Thursday (30/4/2026).
Budi stated that this decision closes the door to multiple interpretations and safeguards the integrity of KPK’s independence. He said the ruling can minimise potential conflicts of interest through a non-activation mechanism for previous positions.
“For the KPK, the most important thing is that integrity and independence remain the primary foundation. This is reinforced by our collective collegial working system, where every strategic decision is taken jointly by the leadership,” he explained.
He noted that the decision strengthens KPK’s governance. He said the ruling will bolster efforts to eradicate corruption.
“We view this decision as strengthening KPK’s institutional governance to remain professional, independent, and effective in carrying out its mandate to eradicate corruption,” he stated.
It is known that the MK partially granted the lawsuit regarding Article 29 letters i and j of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the KPK. The MK stated that becoming a KPK leader no longer requires relinquishing previous positions.
This judicial review application is registered under number 70/PUU-XXIV/2026, filed by Marina Ria Aritonang (petitioner I), Syamsul Jahidin (petitioner II), and Ria Merryanti (petitioner III). The petitioners argued that the provisions of Article 29 letters i and j of the KPK Law contradict their constitutional rights as guaranteed in Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 27 paragraph (3), and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
The petitioners challenged the phrase in Article 29 letter i of the KPK Law, which requires prospective KPK leaders to “relinquish structural positions and/or other positions while serving as members of the Corruption Eradication Commission.” They considered the phrase “relinquish” in the article to create multiple interpretations and could lead to potential conflicts of interest.
However, the MK held a different view. The MK opined that the KPK is a non-structural independent institution established by law, so the position of KPK leadership falls under the category of positions that can apply a temporary suspension mechanism.
The MK gave an example of active police members or officers under Article 28 of Law No. 2 of 2002 on the National Police of the Republic of Indonesia (Law 2/2002), which requires active police officials to resign or retire from police service if they hold positions outside the police that are not related to the police.
“Thus, based on the considerations in the decision, in this context, the use of the word ‘nonaktif’ is more appropriate, concrete, and provides legal certainty, as it allows adjustment of meaning according to each legal regime. For instance, temporary dismissal for civil servants and resignation or retirement for police members/officers, thereby still ensuring no conflicts of interest or dual positions without sacrificing the principles of proportionality and legal certainty,” he said.
The MK also emphasised that the phrase “nonaktif” means not carrying out the position, duties, functions, authority, rank, or profession from the original institution, including other administrative actions, while serving as KPK leadership.