---

Supreme Judge Abdul Manan as Principal Applicant walked out the room after attended the petition revision session on Act of General Court, on Wednesday (29/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) held further session of judicial review regarding on provision which regulated judge selection on Wednesday (29/4) with agenda petition revision. The case listed in number 43/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by several executive board of the Indonesian Judges Association (Ikatan Hakim Indonesia –IKAHI); Imam Soebechi, Abdul Manan, et al. At the session, the Applicant’s Attorney Muhammad Fauzan delivered to the Justice Panel that the Applicant had revised the petition related to legal standing, main points, and petitum (claim basis).

Related to legal standing, Fauzan said that the Applicant was individuals or a group of individuals who represented IKAHI as judges’ profession organization throughout Indonesia. “Applicant I until Applicant VI are represent the Indonesian Judges Association as judges’ profession organization throughout Indonesia,” said Fauzan in front of Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman.  

Furthermore, Fauzan explained that judges were integral part of judiciary system. He argued judge selection was important factor that would determine judiciary system. According to him, the improvement of judiciary system would be difficult without independent judge selection. The lack of judges’ independency would hamper law enforcement. Therefore, Fauzan said, all forms of dependence would reduce judges’ independence in adjudicated and decided cases.

“Based on above explanation, the Applicant’s interest as executive board of IKAHI who serve as Supreme Judge and Registrar at the Supreme Court towards judge selection process on institutions below the Supreme Court, related with its profession, the judicial authority system (could) worked as stipulated on Article 24 (1) the 1945 Constitution,” added Fauzan

Other Applicant’s Attorney Teguh Satya Bakti explained the word ‘independent’ (‘merdeka’) in Article 24 (1) the 1945 Constitution and Article 1 number 1 Act of Judicial Authority had a meaning ‘free’, ‘not bound or not depended on particular party’. Teguh argued that independent judicial authority was not only in context of authority implementation, but also in context of judge selection and recruitment which independent and autonomous. Therefore, Teguh added, the involvement of Judicial Commission in district judge selection, religious judge selection, and state administrative judge selection would ruin judicial authority system.

“The involvement of Judicial Commission in district judge selection, religious judge selection, and state administrative judge selection will ruin judicial authority system which guaranteed by Constitution  because of the prohibition against involvement from external party, except in matters referred in the 1945 Constitution,” explained Teguh.

Moreover, Teguh also revealed that the authority of Judicial Commission on Article 24B (1) the 1945 Constitution was limitative. It meant that its authority confined to propose Supreme Judge appointment, instead of the appointment of general court judges, religious court judges, and state administrative judges. When the Judicial Commission involved in judge selection aforementioned, it meant its authority expanded. According to Teguh, it was a constitutionality matter.   

“Substantial conclusion which could affirmed is the involvement of Judicial Commission in district judge selection, religious judge selection, and state administrative judge selection as mentioned in articles filed, lead to legal uncertainty (rechtsonzekerheid) and cause constitutionality matter,” explained Teguh.

In the petitum, the Applicant requested to the Court to declare the word ‘joint’ (‘bersama’)  and the phrase ‘and Judicial Commission’ (‘dan Komisi Yudisial’)  on Article 14A (2) Act Number 49 Year 2009, Article 13A (2) Act Number 50 Year 2009 and Article 14A (2) Act Number 51 Year 2009 were contrary to the 1945 Constitution and had no legal binding.

Moreover, the Applicant requested to the Court to declare the word ‘joint’ (‘bersama’) and the phrase ‘and Judicial Commission’ (‘dan Komisi Yudisial’) on Article 14A (3) Act Number 49 Year 2009, Article 14A (3) Act Number 51 Year 2009 and the phrase ‘and Judicial Commission’ on Article 13A (3) Act Number 50 Year 2009 were also contrary to the 1945 Constitution and had no legal binding.

After validated evidences, Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman said to the Applicant that the Justice Panel would forwarded the result of preliminary session to Judge’s Consultative Meeting (Rapat Permusyawaratan Hakim –RPH) for the continuation of judicial review. (Triya IR/Prasetyo Adi N.)

---