MKMK Decides Not to Proceed with Adies Kadir Case

The Honourable Council of the Constitutional Court, or MKMK, has decided not to continue examining a report alleging an ethics code violation by Constitutional Judge Adies Kadir. The ruling was read in a session on Thursday, 5 March 2026.

In its considerations, the MKMK stated that it did not have the authority to adjudicate the report containing allegations that Adies Kadir might commit. The report concerns Adies’ political background, including his former status as a cadre of the Golkar Party and as a former Deputy Speaker of the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR).

MKMK member Ridwan Mansyur explained that the body’s task is to examine and assess the truth of the facts presented by the complainant to determine whether the alleged ethics violations occurred. However, he said, the description provided by the complainants is more a matter of concern or prejudice, rather than concrete actions carried out by a constitutional judge.

Even if there are factual elements, the facts cited occurred when the Respondent Judge had not yet held office as a constitutional judge, Ridwan Mansyur said, reading the legal and ethical considerations of MKMK Decision No. 03/MKMK/L/02/2026 on 5 March 2026, as quoted in MKMK’s official statement. Therefore, the MKMK regards the report as outside its jurisdiction.

Adies Kadir was reported by a group of citizens affiliated with the Constitution And Administrative Law Society (CALS). The group comprises 21 scholars of constitutional and administrative law, including Susi Dwi Harijanti, Iwan Satriawan, Denny Indrayana, Zainal Arifin Mochtar, Titi Anggraini, Bivitri Susanti, and Feri Amsari.

In their report, the complainants highlighted several actions by Adies while he was a member of the DPR that are considered potentially violating the ethics code for constitutional judges. Ridwan explained that a person who has not or no longer serves as a constitutional judge is not bound by the ethics code of constitutional judges known as Sapta Karsa Hutama. Consequently, MKMK does not have the authority to examine or assess conduct that occurred before a person served as a constitutional judge.

According to Ridwan, preventive and punitive mechanisms for ethics violations only apply once a person has officially served as a constitutional judge.

Additionally, the report also touches on alleged issues in the process of selecting Adies as a constitutional judge through the DPR. MKMK member Yuliandri assessed that the body must safeguard its boundaries with other state institutions, particularly between the DPR, which has the authority to nominate constitutional judges, and the MKMK, which is tasked with safeguarding the honour and dignity of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia.

Yuliandri explained that the 1945 Constitution and the law on the Constitutional Court provide that a constitutional judge is proposed by three state bodies—the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, the DPR, and the President—each naming three people. After selection by the proposing bodies, the appointment of a constitutional judge is formalised by a presidential decree.

According to Yuliandri, although there have been public criticisms of Adies Kadir’s recruitment process, the MKMK has neither the authority nor the institutional ethics to interfere in that process. Moreover, the Constitutional Court itself cannot intervene in the procedural stages of selecting constitutional judges by the proposing bodies.

He emphasised that the Constitutional Court only accepts and swears in anyone who has been chosen and appointed as a constitutional judge by the competent body. Hence, the relationship between the MK and the nominating bodies is not one of overlapping authority, but rather a point of intersection in the process of filling the vacancy.

Nevertheless, the MKMK states that it does not ignore public criticism regarding Adies’ appointment through the DPR. The law has, in fact, provided guidance that every state body proposing a constitutional judge should carry out the nomination process transparently and with participation.

He also regards public rejection or criticism of the selection process as a legitimate form of public oversight, provided it aims to safeguard objectivity, accountability, openness, and transparency in filling the office of a constitutional judge.

Therefore, the MKMK reminded each state body authorised to nominate constitutional judges to earnestly observe these principles in the nomination and appointment process.