---

State Administration Law Lecturer of Padjajaran University Susi Dwi Harjanti sees that ad hoc Judges need to be granted State Official status to maintain their independency and to lure them from any intervention.

Susi delivered her objection in the Judicial Review of Act 5/2014 about State Civil Apparatus. Susi, acted as the expert, explained that alongside with the development of Justice necessity, special courts are taken into form. This leads to position friction. “Judge positions are not just filled by carrier path, experienced candidates are needed to show their expertise in becoming ad hoc judges,” she explained in Hamdan Zoelva-led Hearing on Monday (7/7).

Ad hoc Judges’ existence was determined in the Act to enforce law and justice. Therefore, the position needs to be regarded as state official as well. “The consequence is to give them same rights as another has, because no different lies between carrier judges and ad hoc,” she explained. 

Exception is Seen Correctly

Meanwhile the Government, in its statement sees the exception of ad hoc judges aside from State Official as determined in Article 122 letter 3 Act of States Civil Apparatus is veracious. “Considering its limited status and period,” Mualimin Abdi, Dir.Gen of Act regulation, said

The description of ad hoc judge as determined in Act 48/2009 is temporary judge who has special expertise. “The ad hoc judges exist over special need. The period comprising a term of 5 years and can only be extended for one another term,” he said.

Prior to it, 11 ad hoc Judges cite the State Civil Apparatus Act is imperfect because it only conveys executive domain of state official, while ad hoc judges are categorized in Judicative domain as determined in Judicative Competence Act. 

Besides, in a quo Article, ad hoc judge is not included as State Official. According to the Plaintiff, the law product under ad hoc judges’ decision is illegal and forfeited.

“Another consequence is when ad hoc judges received gratification from the convicted, the judges have no mandatory to report it,” the Plaintiff said.

 Moreover, the existence of ad hoc Judge is a sinequanon condition toward the need of law increment due to the formation of Special Court. “Judge is state official, regardless of his/her origin or position, but to its function as Judicial Executor,” she retained.

Article 122 letter e Act Number 5 2014 says:

State Official as determined in Article 121 is: (e) Chief, Deputy Chief, and Supreme Judge of Supreme Court, and all Chief, Deputy Chief, and Judges of all Courts but ad hoc.

The Applicant asked MK to state Article 122 letter e Act of State Civil Apparatus, especially phrase “but ad hoc” opposes 1945 Constitution and not restricted. The Applicant also asks MK to state that ad hoc judge is part of State Official as well (Lulu Hanifah/kun)

---