Reconstruction of the Position and Authority of Judicial Commission of oversighting Suprme Court and Its Judicial Bodies
Jakarta-Bldk.mahkamahagung.go.id. Research and Development Center for Law And Judiciary of Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia held Focus Group Discussion (FGD), on 31 January 2020 regarding Reconstruction the Position of Judicial Commission over Supreme Court. That theme is one of the issues that the Research and Development Center focused on. This theme would be followed up by researching the priority program of the Research and Development Center in 2020’s budget implementation registration form.
Starting his remark as the person in charge of the Research, the Head of Research and Development Center for Law and Judiciary of the Republic of Indonesia Dr. Hasbi Hasan reiterated that the Research led by Cecep Mustafa, SH.,LLM, PhD was supposed to search and find the ideal position for Judicial Commission particularly the position of the head of Judicial Commission which could serve as the Chief Justice of the Republic of Indonesia. The position of the head of Judicial Commission simultaneously served as Chief Justice had been practised in the few countries such as Australia and other countries. According to Hasbi Hasan, this kind of position, in case of oversight and enforcing the Judges'code of ethics relating to maintain the dignity, prestige and authority of judges could run well and effective
The keynote speaker of Focus Group Discussion was Professor Dr. Zainal Arifien Husein, SH, MH (Professor of Muhammadiyah University’s Law Faculty Jakarta), simultanously joined as the Research team. He reiterated that this research was really exact to conduct as an effort to maintain and re-position the position and function of independent legal power as written in constitution to enforce the law and justice. There was no commission in the world could be guaranteed in the Constitution as the institution of legal power. Therefore,any actions aiming at eroding of legal power needed to be questioned.
Then, Prof Zainal said that there was misinterpretation conducted by Judicial Commission in the article 24 b of Constitution of 1945 to maintain and enforce the honour, glory and authority of Judges. This misinterpretation was used by Judicial Commission to enlarge their illegitimate power to take part in selecting the judge’s candidate. On the contrary, the main function of Judicial Commission only selected Justices and proposed the promotion of Justices. Judicial Commision was supposed to focus and consistent of their duty and main function to enforce the code of ethics and conduct of Judges. This action was to maintain dignity and honor of Judges because Judicial Commission actually was an institution whose task to oversight the code of ethics and conduct of Judges. Judicial Commission did not have authority to oversight on technical judiciary
The other keynote speaker was Dr. Margarito Kamis representing the experts of administrative law reiterated that the main point of this study was oversighting Judges conducted by Judicial Commission which had practically had violated the constitution. What was supposed to oversight had biased. The contradictive matter which had been existed since Judicial Commission was formed was the misleading practical oversight conducted by Judicial Commission. He added that this research was expected to underline the oversight’s object conducted by Judicial Commission as mandated by Constitution
The next keynote speaker was Bapak Dr. Binsar Gultom, the High Court Judge of Banten’s High Court. He conveyed more facts in real practical oversight conducted by Judicial Commission which had violated the law. According to him, Judicial Commission had not oversighted maximally, in addition, their oversight was regarded as manipulation. One of the oversights conducted by Judicial Commission was experienced personally by Bapak Dr. Binsar Gultom. He never was examined related to the claim against him regarding violating judge’s code of Ethics during his serve as the Judge of Palembang’s District Court. On the contrary, five years later, surprisingly, he got the official letter from Judicial Commission when he served as High Court Judge of Banten’s High Court connected with vindication, reported by the public, meanwhile He was never examined related to that matter. Actually, Dr. Binsar Gultom minded to this case because his track record had been blacklisted in Judicial Commission. This matter would block his career as a judge in the future.
This case strengthened Dr. Binsar Gultom’s argumentation that Judicial Commission had not understood and misled to conduct the function and duty to maintain the dignity and prestige of the Judges. Dr. Binsar had experienced other cases which triggered him to file the Judicial Review to Constitutional Court as well as to State Administrative Court. Therefore, this research was important to give input to reconstruct the position and function of Judicial Commission as refer to the Constitution of 1945
Meanwhile, the participants attended to Forum Group Discussion consisted of High Court Judges of Oversight, Justicial Judges of Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Justicial Judges of Research and Development Center for Law and Judiciary and researchers of Research and Development Center for Law and Judiciary of Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Participants focused more on the uncertain function of Judicial Commission which had not functioned maximally to date. Judicial Commission ignored the ongoing condition, such as Public attacked and burnt the court’s building and threatened the dignity and prestige of the judges. There was no respond from Judicial Commission to conduct its function. Judicial Commission oversighted more overlimited of its main duty.
The host of forum group discussion, Dr. Ismail Rumadhan concluded that main problems which had to focus on this research titled Reconstruction of Judicial Commission’s position over Supreme Court were reconstruction on few areas. First, reconstruction to the position of Judicial Commission which was supposed to return to its position as commission institution, it was not the judicial power executor’s function. Second, the position of the head of Judicial Commission that could be served also by the Chief Justice. Third, it was about the roadmap of oversighting authority and oversight’s object conducted by Judicial Commission. (JLD/edited_CCP)