Political interest behind Adies’ judicial appointment

The recent nomination of Golkar Party politician Adies Kadir by the House of Representatives to the Constitutional Court bench has ignited a long-standing debate regarding transparency, institutional encroachment and the potential erosion of judicial independence. As the court navigates an increasingly crowded docket of judicial reviews, the House’s selection process suggests a strategic shift toward prioritizing legislative discretion over constitutional oversight.

On Jan. 27, the House designated Adies, a deputy speaker, as the successor to Justice Arief Hidayat, who reached the mandatory retirement age on Feb. 3. While the appointment has been formally endorsed by President Prabowo Subianto , the procedural path to this nomination has drawn significant scrutiny. The confirmation hearing, conducted on Jan. 26, was characterized by an unconventional lack of transparency; the session reportedly lasted less than 30 minutes and lacked the customary public notice.

This haste is particularly striking given that the decision summarily overturned a previous resolution from August 2025 to nominate Inosentius Samsul, the head of the House’s Expertise Board. The abrupt substitution, which lawmakers later characterized as a move made "for the interests of the House", reinforces the perception that political loyalty and institutional protectionism have superseded a merit-based, competitive evaluation of candidates.

The crux of the polemic is whether the nominee fulfills the rigorous criteria of "statesmanship" mandated by Article 15 of Law No. 24/2023 on Constitutional Court. This unique constitutional requirement is intended to serve as a filter, ensuring that justices possess a degree of integrity and legal vision that transcends party affiliation.

However, Adies’ recent political track record has invited skepticism. In late 2025, he faced internal party deactivation following controversial remarks regarding housing allowances, comments that many viewed as a disconnect from the economic realities facing the public.

In an academic context, the appointment of a high-ranking political actor directly to the constitutional bench raises concerns about "captured" judiciaries. The court remains the final arbiter of sensitive political disputes, including election results and the constitutionality of flagship government policies. If a justice is seen as an extension of the legislature rather than an independent guardian of the basic law, the institution's moral authority is diminished.

The friction between the legislature and the judiciary is best illustrated by the court’s burgeoning caseload. Over its 22-year history, the court has adjudicated nearly 4,750 cases, with judicial reviews comprising a dominant share of its output. This trend has reached an unprecedented peak in the current period. In 2025, the Court received 284 judicial review petitions, marking a sharp 50.3 percent increase from the previous year. This volume is nearly triple that recorded just five years ago, reflecting a growing societal reliance on the court to rectify perceived legislative overreach in statutes concerning the Military (TNI), the National Police and the Elections Law.

During his brief hearing, Adies argued that the court should avoid encroaching upon the "technical policy domain", which he contends remains the exclusive province of lawmakers. This stance aligns with the legal theory of "judicial restraint", favoring a narrower scope for the court.

However, legal scholars worry this is a euphemism for a more passive bench that would defer to the "open legal policy" of the House, even when such policies might infringe upon constitutional norms.

The imminent inauguration of Adies is not merely a personnel change; it is a signal of the legislature’s desire to reassert dominance over a court that has, in the past, been a formidable check on power. Former justice Aswanto’s 2022 dismissal serves as a haunting precedent for what happens when the court’s rulings clash with parliamentary interests.

As the court prepares to hear challenges to the Elections Law and other politically sensitive statutes, its legitimacy rests on public confidence. Civil society’s demand for a more participatory selection process is a reminder that the "guardian of the Constitution" must not only be independent in its rulings but must also be seen as independent in its origin.