Constitutional Court Ethics Council holding press conference on Thursday (12/11/2025) to respond to reports on social media and the press questioning the legitimacy of the chief justice. Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court’s Ethics Council (Majelis Kehormatan Mahkamah Konstitusi/MKMK) held a press conference on Thursday, December 11, 2025 in response to reports on social media and the press that questioned the legitimacy of the status of the chief justice. The Ethics Council has closely monitored the news reports in question to date, but has found no violation of the Sapta Karsa Hutama (Seven Principles of Integrity) by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, and therefore found no grounds to register the matter as a finding.
“The Court’s Ethics Council has the duty and function of maintaining the honor and dignity of the Court, monitor the implementation of the code of ethics and conduct for constitutional justices, examine, and adjudicate alleged violations of the code of ethics and conduct for constitutional justices,” said the Council’s chair I Dewa Gede Palguna in front of the media at the Court’s main hall.
In line with these duties and functions, the Ethics Council considered it important to take a stance and action regarding the news reports questioning the validity of the position of chief justice for the 2023-2028 term, currently held by Chief Justice Suhartoyo. The Council emphasized several points, including that the basis for the arguments in the news reports was the Administrative Court (PTUN) Decision No. 604/G/2023/PTUN.JKT.
The decision in question was handed down for a lawsuit filed by Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman, who questioned the Constitutional Court Decree No. 17 of 2023 concerning the Appointment of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 Term dated November 9, 2023. Meanwhile, Constitutional Court Decree No. 17 of 2023 is a follow-up to the order of the Ethics Council Decision No. 2/MKMK/L/11/2023.
In this regard, the Ethics Council believes there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the line of reasoning in the administrative court decision by removing it from the context contained in the legal considerations of the ruling, so that the position of Chief Justice Suhartoyo appeared to be invalid. The said decision:
- Granted the Plaintiff’s claim in part;
- Declaring the Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 17 of 2023, dated November 9, 2023, regarding the appointment of Dr. Suhartoyo, S.H., M.H. as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term invalid;
- Required the Defendant to revoke the Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 17 of 2023, dated November 9, 2023, concerning the appointment of Dr. Suhartoyo, S.H., M.H. as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term;
- Granted the Plaintiff’s request to restore his dignity and honor as a Constitutional Justice;
- Rejected the Plaintiff’s request to restore his position as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term;
- Declared that it did not accept the Plaintiff’s request to order the Defendant to pay a penalty of Rp100 (one hundred rupiah) per day if the Defendant fails to comply with this Decision, effective since the date this Decision becomes final and binding (inkracht van gewijsde);
- Ordered Defendant and Defendant II Intervention to pay court fees in the amount of Rp369,000 (three hundred sixty-nine thousand rupiah).
Palguna explained that there was an intentional attempt to mislead because the part quoted from the aforementioned administrative court decision only referred to point 2 without connecting it to the other points and the context of the legal considerations of the decision. Meanwhile, the legal considerations that were intentionally ignored were as follows: “Considering, that therefore the Court is of the opinion that the Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 17 of 2023 dated November 9, 2023 concerning the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term, which essentially appointed Suhartoyo as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court to replace the Plaintiff, has been revoked, the issuance of the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia on the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term by the name of Suhartoyo, which is correct and in accordance with the laws and regulations and the principles of good governance, must be carried out by the Defendant based on his authority.”
Referring to the verdict and legal considerations of the above decision, the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, in accordance with his authority, has followed up by issuing Constitutional Court Decree No. 8 of 2024 concerning the Appointment of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 Term as a follow-up to the Administrative Court Decision No. 604/G/2023/PTUN.JKT, with the following dictum:
First: To dismiss Prof. Dr. Anwar Usman, S.H., M.H. as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term based on Constitutional Court Decree No. 4 of 2023 concerning the Appointment of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 Term dated March 15, 2023.
Second: To revoke Decree of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 17 of 2023 concerning the Appointment of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 Term dated November 9, 2023.
Third: Appointing Dr. Suhartoyo, S.H., M.H. as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term.
Fourth: This decision shall come into force on the date of its enactment.
In another section, the legal considerations of the Administrative Court Decision No. 604/G/2023/PTUN.JKT clearly states: “Considering that, from a substantive perspective, according to the Court, the issuance of the disputed decision a quo (see Exhibits P-1, T-4, and T.II.Intv-26), which is the implementation of the Decision of the Ethics Council of the Constitutional Court No. 2/MKMK/L/11/2023 dated November 7, 2023, (see Exhibits P-2, T-1, and T.II.Intv-24) in litis is in accordance with the principles of law and legislation, and in substance, the consensus of the plenary meeting of the constitutional justices has appointed a new chief justice of the Constitutional Court, therefore the Court declared that it did not accept the Plaintiff’s request to be reinstated/returned to his position as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term.”
Based on the legal considerations above, the Administrative Court declared that the Plaintiff’s request, in this case Anwar Usman, to be reinstated/returned to his position as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term was unacceptable as stated in point 5 (five) of PTUN Decision No. 604/G/2023/PTUN.JKT. Thus, based on the entire description above, it is clear that Constitutional Court Decision No. 8 of 2024 is a follow-up to the order of PTUN Decision No. 604/G/2023/PTUN.JKT. Therefore, the opinion stating that Suhartoyo appointed himself through this decision is incorrect, and at the same time, there are no legal grounds to doubt the validity of Suhartoyo’s status as Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court for the 2023-2028 term.
“Therefore, the Ethics Council found no violation of the Sapta Karsa Hutama,” said Palguna.
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : N. Rosi
Translator : N. Valentino Rahadityo/YW (NL)
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Thursday, December 11, 2025 | 10:31 WIB 429