Constitutional Court stated that ad hoc justices, according to the regulation, situated in five special courts, namely, Human Rights, Corruption, Industrial Relations, Fishery, Industrial Relations Disputes, and Forestry Court.

Represented by Special Crime Supreme Justice MA Suhadi, Supreme Court stated that Human Rights Court is competent to drop a sentence over human rights abuses, comprising genocide and crime against humanity. Human Rights Court held with 5 Justices, consisting of 2 carrier Justices and 3 ad hoc justices. The composition applies for first, circuit, and cassation level.

Ad hoc Justice for first and appeal level dismissed by the president based on MA proposal in 5-year tenure period and may be promoted for one period. Ad hoc Justices in Supreme Court promoted and dismissed by the President based on DPR proposal for 5-year tenure period. “There are no Human Rights ad hoc Justices to date, their tenure ended by the closing of East Timor cases,” he explained in Hamdan Zoelva-led trial, Wednesday (9/24).

Another special trial is corruption crime corruption. Based on Act 46/2009, Corruption Crime Court consisting of career and ad hoc Justices and competent to decide over fraud cases. To date, 33 Corruption Courts spread in all over Indonesia. Ad hoc Justices spared in every judicial level, dismissed and promoted by President within 5-year period and may get promoted for another term once. “There are 201 Justices in duty for now, 8 in cassation level, 61 in circuit, and 131 in first level,” Suhardi said    

Fishery Courts, according to Act 45/2009, are only situated in first level court. 56 ad hoc Justices are now in charge in 7 Fishery Courts, while industry relations Court, based on Act 2/2004, represents Workers, entrepreneurs, and Career Justices. Both Justices dismissed and promoted in the same way as other ad hoc Justices had.

Supreme’s Court explanation on ad hoc Justices was delivered as Act 5/2014 about State’s Civil Servant (UU ASN) is being reviewed at the Court. Eleven ad hoc Justices consider the Article imperfect due to the lacking explanation whether where do ad hoc Justices shall be placed in.  

Besides, according to the role ad hoc Justices are ousted from State Official. Such occurrence may lead to illegal verdict emitted by the special ad hoc court, as the statuses of ad hoc Justices are still unclear.  

“Another consequence is ad hoc Justices may not report their received graft, since such mandatory only applied to State Official,” the Plaintiff said, Monday (4/7).(Lulu Hanifah/mh/kun)