---

H.A.S Natabaya attended further session of Case No. 53/PUU-XIV/2016 as Applicant’s expert, on Monday (5/9) in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

 

There are two types of justice which are career justice and ad-hoc justice and the term “non-career justice” is not recognized, former constitutional justice H.A.S Natabaya delivered in further session of Case No. 53/PUU-XIV/2016 on Monday (5/9). “For example is justice system in Netherlands,” said him who delivered testimony as Applicant’s expert.

He explained that the Netherlands Supreme Court may appoint ad hoc justice when the Supreme Court needs specific knowledge perspective.

Moreover, he said that the difference of career and non-career justice is on education qualification. Non-career justice’s experience in law field is questionable, he added. “Non-career justice may have doctoral title, but his experience in law field is questionable,” he explained.

Political, law, and security trial preparation and assistance head of the Legislation Litigation Directorate General Hotman Sitorus refuted Natabaya’s argument. He said that Professor Bagir Manan who was non-career justice can be appointed as Supreme Court Chief Justice. The appointment of supreme justice in the US is based on presidential discretion, regardless of whether a justice is from cassation justice or district justice, he added.

“In the United States, a lot of respectable supreme court chief justices that have no background as justice prior to their appointment, such as John Marshall,” said him who delivered Government’s Expert testimony.

The House of Representatives and President’s Expert which scheduled to deliver testimony were absent in the session.

As known, Central Jakarta district court justice Binsar M. Gultom and Medan high court justice Lilik Mulyadi challenged Article 6B (2) Act of the Supreme Court which allowed supreme justice candidate from non-career justice. They argued that the provision was inappropriate because the benchmark of justice requirement is not just merely based on academic background, but also on experience and competence.

Moreover, the Applicants argued that Article 7 letter a number 4 and number 6 Act of the Supreme Court which regulated Supreme Court Justice requirement for career justice is discriminative comparing with requirement for non-career justice as stipulated in Article 7 letter b Act of the Supreme Court. As known, minimum age of career justice is 45 years old with 20-years experience, including 3-years experience in serving as high court justice, while non-career justice only required to have 20-years experience in law field without any requirement of specified legal expertise.

The Applicant also questioned Article 22 Act of the Supreme Court. They argued that constitutional justice should have no periodization, similar to supreme court justice. “There is no periodization in Supreme Court Act, while periodization of 5 years term is applied for constitutional justice. This provision will affect judicial independency of the Constitutional Court,” said Binsar in preliminary session. (ars/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

---