House of People Representatives: Supreme Court Justice Candidates Can Not be Approved by House of People Representatives
Image


Based on the mandate of the 1945Constitution, the House of People Representatives (DPR) has the constitutional authority to give consent or cannot give consent to the nominees proposed by the Judicial Commission. Therefore the candidates proposed by the Judicial Commission do not necessarily have to be approved by Parliament. There should be a process of assessment, there should be a selection process to be approved or not approved by the Parliament.

This was stated by Syarifuddin Sudding, members of the House of Representatives Commission III, which represent the House in judicial review of Act No. 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment Act 4 of 1985 on the Supreme Court (MA), and Act 18 of 2011 on Amendment of Act 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission (KY), with case number 27/PUU-XI/2013, on Tuesday 23/04/2013, at a plenary session of the Constitutional Court (MK).

Sudding explained that Article 24A paragraph (3) and Article 24B Paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945 only regulate matters of a general nature and does not regulate matters that are more technical on the mechanism of nomination by the Chief Justice of the Judicial Commission to DPR. "Therefore, in the view of the House of Representatives such matters is a legal policy of the legislators to set the law as mandated by Section 24A subsection (5) of the Constitution of 1945," said Sudding

It also expressed Mualimin Abdi as the representative of the government at the trial. According to him, the approval must also be understood as part of the selection process. "As has been said by the Parliament then there must be a process, there must be a mechanism which then determined the mechanism itself or regulated in the legislation, as petitioned for by the applicant itself," said Mualimin, Head of Research and Development of Human Rights Ministry of Law and Human Rights.

Mualimin further explained, the charging nominees, as the judiciary power in order to establish justice, require the filling mechanism and ways meticulous, thorough, and accurate in order to obtain the justices have sufficient integrity. If Petitioners are correct assumption that there are things that are different between the KY Supreme Court Act and the Law with Law No. 27 Year 2009 on the MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD, then it is the authority of the former Act to harmonize, through changes in the law as a legal policy or policy options are open.

Previously, Made Darma Weda, R.M. Panggabean and St. Laksanto Utomo, three lecturers from the Faculty of Law (FH) University of Sahid (Usahid) Jakarta, questioned Article 8, paragraph (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Law no. 3 of 2009 on the Second Amendment Law. 4 of 1985 on the Supreme Court (MA), and Article 18 paragraph (4), Article 19 paragraph (1) of Law no. 18 of 2011 on Amendment of Act 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission (KY), which regulates the mechanism of selection of Supreme Court justices. According to the Petitioners mechanisms that governed the selection of Supreme Court justices in the Supreme Court Act and KY vary with the selection of justices’ mechanism enshrined in the Constitution. Due to the differences, the three felt aggrieved because it failed to be elected chief justice in the selection of Supreme Court justices in the House.

The next hearing will resume on Thursday, 05/16/2013, to hear expert testimony presented by the Petitioners. (Ilham / mh)


Tuesday, April 23, 2013 | 17:51 WIB 123