---

Ad Hoc Supreme Judges of Corruption (tipikor) Krisna Harahap sees discrimination of ad hoc judges to regular judges, as implied after Article 22 letter e Act 5/2014 about the State Civil Apparatus (UU ASN) took place.

The Professor said ad hoc judges can’t be regarded as ‘temporary’. “The exact interpretation must be ‘special’, formed after a purpose,” he said in the 32/PUU-XII/2014 registered case at MK Plenary room, Jakarta, Monday (21/7).

Ad hoc Judges retained their position after Act 46/2009 about Tipikor Court in which saying ad hoc Judges are needed because their expertise is moving along with tipikor’s complexity.

Therefore, he stated that the side who blew the opinion that ad hoc is temporary, has no understanding of what ad hoc really means. Purposely hinder corruption eradication, despite Article 21 verse 2 Act 46/2009 has determined.

“What we’ve experienced is their salaries were distinguished. Although both salaries derive from APBN (State Budget), their salaries are subject to 16.5% tax. They don’t get pension. This is ironic, those people have saved trillion of state’s money but gain less than regular Judges,” he said.

Discrimination is purposely fostered to hinder their prosperity as they don’t get called as “Your Majesty”, but just “Your Excellency”, to distinct them from regular Judges.

Moreover, he asked that ad hoc judges are also state officials. “If they’re not working for state, so what they are represented for?” he asked.

Prior to it, eleven ad hoc judges view that UU ASN is imperfect because Civil Apparatus is mainly state in executive domain, while ad hoc judge is in judicative domain as determined in Act of Justice’s authority.

Besides, in a quo article, ad hoc judges are not included as State Official. It could bear that every sentence dropped by the ad hoc Judge is illegal.

“Other consequence is that ad hoc judge may receive gratification and not even feel bother to report it, because they’re not state official,” said the Applicant.

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/mh/kun)

---