Indonesia's DPR plenary session has approved that the Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MKMK) lacks authority to process reports on Adies Kadir's candidacy as a Constitutional Court judge. The decision stems from Komisi III's conclusions, while the MKMK chair refused to disclose the report's contents to preserve independence. The report was filed by 21 academics and legal practitioners alleging ethics violations.
On Thursday, February 19, 2026, Indonesia's DPR held its 14th Plenary Session to close the III Session of the 2025-2026 Year in Jakarta, approving Komisi III's recommendation that the Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MKMK) cannot process reports on Adies Kadir's candidacy as a Constitutional Court (MK) judge.
DPR Speaker Puan Maharani stated that this conclusion limits MKMK's authority to enforcing ethics codes for incumbent constitutional judges, per Article 27A of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court. "Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi does not have the authority to follow up on reports related to the mechanism of selecting constitutional judges by all proposing institutions," Puan said while leading the session.
Komisi III also recommended that the MK clarify MKMK's duties and powers to align with the law. Attending DPR members approved the conclusions.
Previously, on Wednesday, February 18, 2026, during a Komisi III meeting, MKMK Chair I Gede Dewa Palguna refused to disclose the substance of the report against Adies Kadir. He preferred dismissal over violating his oath and independence. "As long as it concerns the substance we are handling... we cannot open it here. Impossible. Because we would violate our oath, we would violate procedural law," Palguna said.
Adies Kadir, former DPR Deputy Speaker, was sworn in as an MK judge by President Prabowo Subianto following nomination by Komisi III and DPR plenary approval. The report to MKMK was submitted by 21 members of the Constitutional and Administrative Law Society (CALS), including professors and legal practitioners, alleging violations of ethics codes and regulations in his candidacy to uphold the Court's dignity.
