The Constitutional Court's Honorary Council has examined four complaints from three constitutional judges regarding complaints of ethical violations in handling material review cases regarding the age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates.
Please note that this article was automatically translated using Microsoft Azure AI, Open AI, and Google Translation AI. We cannot ensure that the entire content is translated accurately. If you spot any errors or inconsistencies, contact us atThe following article was translated using both Microsoft Azure Open AI and Google Translation AI. The original article can be found in
Constitutional Judge Anwar Usman is the most complained-about among the 18 reports received by the Constitutional Court. The most complaints raised concern allegations of conflict of interest in handling the material test for case 90 regarding the age of presidential and vice presidential candidates.
Apart from that, there are judges, who, because they are annoyed, express their anger to the public and there are judges who write, but not the substance of ideas, but rather expressions of anger. There is also the issue of registration procedures.
Anwar admits to never having done any lobbying. Anwar also states that the examination of case 90 is a trial against norms. In addition, the examination of the Constitutional Court is not a factual trial related to specific individuals.