---

Constitutional Court granted the petition for judicial review of Law No. 18/2011 on the Judicial Commission (KY Law) filed by the Rector and the Indonesian Islamic University lecturer Prof. Edy Suandi Hamid and Sri Hastuti Puspitasari.

"Passing, states grant the petition in part," said Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva recited the verdict in the courtroom of the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Tuesday (12/23).

Such decision is passed to replace the phrase "as many as 21 (twenty-one) candidates" in Article 28 paragraph (3) letter c KY Law become "as much as 7 (seven) candidates" or more become, "The Selection Committee has the task: ... c. determine and submit candidates for members of the Judicial Commission of 7 (seven) candidates to consider the composition of the Judicial Commission as referred to Article 6 paragraph (3) within a period not later than 30 (thirty) days ".

In addition, the phrase "shall select and" in Article 28 paragraph (6) of the KY Law also declared contrary to 1945 Constitution into extent not intended "the authority to approve or not approve". Thus, more becomes, "Parliament approves or does not approve to set 7 (seven) prospective members no later than 30 (thirty) days after receiving proposal from the President".

In addition, the Court also removes the phrase "three (3) times of" in Article 37 paragraph (1) of the KY Law and replace with "as equals". Thus, the article is read, "In the event that the membership of the Judicial Commission, President nominating candidates for replacement at the same amount of vacant position to Parliament".

Petitioned provisions, namely the phrase "at least 21 (twenty one) candidate" in Article 28 paragraph (3) c, the word "choose" in Article 28 paragraph (6), and the phrase "three (3) times of" in Article 37 paragraph (1) of the KY Law, generally regulates recruitment for KY members. The phrase "as many as 21 (twenty-one) candidates" in Article 28 paragraph (3) c and the phrase "three (3) times of" in Article 37 paragraph (1) of the Act means that the selection committee KY (Pansel) in organizing the selection prospective KY members amounting 7 people have to produce 21 candidates and likewise to fill the void 1 members, Pansel must produce three candidates, then the results are submitted to Parliament by the President. Connection with the provision of the word "choose" in Article 28 paragraph (6) of the Act KY, House of Representatives shall choose and set 7 of 21 candidates or one of three candidates nominated by the President.

According to the Court, the recruitment mechanism for KY membership has something in common with the Chief Justice’s recruitment mechanisms that have been considered by the Court in its Decision No. 27/PUU-XI/2013 concerning the testing of Law 3/2009 on the Supreme Court and the KY Law. In this decision, the Court stated in the recruitment of candidates for the election of justices in the House is against the 1945 Constitution as parliamentarians, instead of choosing one. "Based on these considerations, therefore, the petition for judicial review is the same as the substance of the decision on the above considerations, the substance of the legal considerations apply mutatis mutandis as a consideration in the decision on the petition," said Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams.

While the Court assesses the word "shall" in Article 28 paragraph (6) would make the House only to \'stamping machine\' alone. It is constitutionally shall not happen, "he added.

 

Therefore, according to the Court, the rules must still provide space for freedom of Parliament in exercising its authority to approve or not candidate proposed by the President. The phrase "and set" should be interpreted "to set". Thus, the intended meaning of the article to be "Parliament approves or does not approve to set 7 (seven) prospective members no later than 30 (thirty) days after receiving a proposal from the President".

KPK Law Review Denied

While on the judicial review of Law 30/2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law), the Court rejected the petition.

In their petition, the Petitioner examine the word "chosen" in Article 30 paragraph (1) and the phrase "choose and set" in Article 30 paragraph (10) and (11) KPK Law. These norms governing recruitment for filling positions concurrently members of KPK leaders are elected by the Parliament based prospective members proposed by the President. In the framework of the nomination of the President, forming a selection committee in charge of selecting the candidates and determine the names of candidates to be submitted to the President within a certain time. The president gave the name of the candidate as much as two (2) times the number of positions required to Parliament.

On the petition, the Court judges granting the President the authority to propose candidates for the leadership and member commission and granting authority to the parliament vote for a candidate who proposed the President is in the realm of the policy of the Act (opened legal policy). "This is an implementation of the principle of checks and balances system between the President and Parliament. Therefore, the Court declares a quo petition has no legal grounds, "said Wahiduddin. (Lulu Hanifah/kun)

---