TheJakartaPost
Please Update your browser
Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search results
Popular Reads
Top Results
No results found. Please check your search term and try again
Can't find what you're looking for?
View all search resultsFlawed judicial selection
The sudden appointment of lawmaker Adies Kadir from the pro-government Golkar Party as a Constitutional Court justice reveals how political interests now command the vetting process for the guardian of the Constitution.
Change text size
Gift Premium Articles
to Anyone
Share the best of The Jakarta Post with friends, family, or colleagues. As a subscriber, you can gift 3 to 5 articles each month that anyone can read—no subscription needed!
Former Golkar Party politician and House of Representatives deputy speaker Adies Kadir attends a House plenary session at the Senayan Legislative Complex in Central Jakarta on Jan. 27, 2026. The House appointed Adies as its appointee for the Constitutional Court justice seat to replace incumbent Justice Arief Hidayat who is due to retire. (Antara/Dhemas Reviyanto)
L
ast week, the House of Representatives appointed its own lawmaker, Adies Kadir of the pro-government Golkar Party, as a new Constitutional Court justice. The process was characterized by an unprecedented degree of secrecy and haste.
Known for controversial remarks that fueled the August 2025 unrest, Adies, who has resigned as deputy House speaker, will replace Justice Arief Hidayat, who is nearing retirement. Arief was notable for his bold dissenting opinions in major rulings, most significantly when he opposed the 2023 decision that enabled Gibran Rakabuming Raka, son of then-president Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, to run for vice president despite initially being ineligible due to his age.
In nominating Adies as the sole candidate, lawmakers pointedly circumvented public vetting. This appointment also marked a last-minute reversal of the House’s August 2025 decision to approve Inosentius Samsul, head of the House’s Expertise Board, as the intended replacement. Lawmakers candidly admitted that the pivot to Adies was made “for the interests of the House”.
By law, the House, the president and the Supreme Court each vet and elect three Constitutional Court justices, all of whom require presidential approval. A justice may serve a 15-year term until the age of 70.
Historically, these three branches have employed vastly different mechanisms. For example, former president Jokowi utilized a panel of independent experts to screen candidates, a significant departure from the practices of his predecessor, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. Meanwhile, the legislature has previously held public interviews, though experts have often dismissed these as mere formalities. The Supreme Court, conversely, has traditionally vetted its candidates behind closed doors.
Underlying this inconsistency is a total absence of standardized transparency. While the 2020 Constitutional Court Law stipulates that the selection process must be objective, accountable and transparent, it fails to define to whom the appointing bodies are accountable. However, this legislative vagueness does not justify the deliberate avoidance of transparency.
The House’s recent judicial election serves as a grim reminder of a systemic reality: the selection of justices is now dominated by political expediency. In recent years, the legislature has frequently clashed with the court, bending regulations to tighten control over its appointees and ignoring rulings that contradict its interests.
