JAKARTA, Legal Literacy — Former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK) Jimly Asshiddiqie assessed Adies Kadir in a personal capacity worthy to serve as a constitutional judge. However, Jimly leveled sharp criticism against DPR mechanism in filling the position of MK judge which he considered problematic ethics and potentially disrupting independence of judicial power.

The statement was made by Jimly when met at Balai Kartini, Jakarta, Saturday, February 7, 2026. He assessed that Adies has a relevant combination for a constitutional judge: mastery of theory and practical experience in public office.

According to Jimly, this quality is important because MK judges handle cases that often have a broad impact on politics and constitutional law. He assessed that practical experience can help understand policy dynamics, while mastery of theory is needed to keep decisions based on the constitution.

Highlight on the process, not the person

Nevertheless, Jimly asserted that the core issue does not lie with Adies' figure, but rather with how the DPR (House of Representatives) carries out the process of replacement of constitutional court judges. He mentioned the change in the DPR's decision which had previously determined Inosentius Samsul as a candidate to replace Arief Hidayat, but then canceled it.

For Jimly, the cancellation of a candidate who has passed a fit and proper test and obtained political approval in parliament raises big question marks regarding propriety and ethical consistency in decision-making. He assesses that such a step can damage public trust in the recruitment process for constitutional court judges.

Evaluation of the recruitment mechanism for constitutional court judges

Jimly also assesses that this polemic shows the urgency of a thorough evaluation of the recruitment design for constitutional court judges. He criticized the growing perception that constitutional court judges “represent” the proposing institutions—three from the DPR, three from the President, and three from the Supreme Court—as if the judge's seat is a representation of institutional interests.

According to him, this point of view is prone to giving rise to the assumption that certain judges carry a political mandate, even though the Constitutional Court should stand independently as a guardian of the constitution.