MKMK Says It Has No Authority to Judge Adies Kadir's Ethics Report

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court Honor Assembly (MKMK) stated that it was not authorized to try the report of alleged violations of ethics and behavior of Constitutional Judge Adies Kadir.

"Deciding, stating that the Honorary Assembly is not authorized to examine, try, and decide on the quo report," said Chairman of the MKMK I Dewa Gede Palguna when delivering the verdict on report number 03/MKMK/L/ARLTP/02/2026 reported by ANTARA, Thursday, February 5.

Based on Regulation of the Constitutional Court Number 11 of 2024, the authority of the MKMK includes maintaining the honor and integrity of the Constitutional Court, monitoring the implementation of the code of ethics and conduct of constitutional judges, and examining and deciding on alleged violations of the code of ethics and conduct of constitutional judges.

MKMK member Ridwan Mansyur explained that the scope of MKMK's authority regarding the acts or behavior of constitutional judges only applies to a person who is currently serving as a constitutional judge.

The Code of Ethics and Conduct of Constitutional Judges or Sapta Karsa Hutama is the parameter of the MKMK in measuring alleged violations of acts or behaviors that are only binding and applicable to constitutional judges.

"A person who has not served as a constitutional judge or after completing his term as a constitutional judge is no longer bound by Sapta Karsa Hutama," he said, reading the legal considerations.

This report was submitted by 21 professors, lecturers, to practitioners of constitutional and administrative law who are members of the Constitutional and Administrative Law Society (CALS).

CALS reported Adies Kadir because he suspected that his nomination as a constitutional judge proposed by the DPR RI violated the code of ethics and conduct of constitutional judges as well as laws and regulations.

In its report, CALS reasoned that the nomination of Adies Kadir as a constitutional judge to replace Arief Hidayat was inappropriate because it was carried out after Commission III of the Indonesian House of Representatives chose another candidate, namely Inosentius Samsul.

In addition, CALS also considers Adies Kadir, with his background as a politician, to have a great potential for conflict of interest when trying cases, both testing laws and disputes over election results.

According to the MKMK, the alleged violations reported by CALS occurred before Adies Kadir served as a constitutional judge.

"Specifically, the actions or behaviors that the reporter considers to be suspected of violating the code of ethics and behavior are in the space and time when the judge is reported to have served as a member of the DPR," said Ridwan.

Meanwhile, regarding the CALS argument regarding the political affiliation background of Adies Kadir, MKMK emphasized that the scope of its authority was only on the acts committed while the reporter was serving as a constitutional judge.

The MKMK assessed that the CALS report could not be categorized as a behavior carried out by constitutional judges, but only a presumption or prejudice that was solely based on concerns.

"Even if there is something factual, the facts in question occurred when the judge in question was not yet in the status of constitutional judge," added Ridwan.

With this consideration, Adies Kadir's behavior reported by CALS was not measurable by Sapta Karsa Utama so that the MKMK was not authorized to investigate and prosecute the report.

In the same trial, the MKMK also stated that it was not authorized to try the other two reports related to Adies Kadir, namely report number 01/MKMK/L/ARLTP/02/2026 which was reported by lawyer Syamsul Jahidin and report number 02/MKMK/L/ARLTP/02/2026 with the reporter lawyer Edy Rudyanto.