---

Panel preliminary examination hearing of the Judicial Commission Law, Monday (9/11/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission virtually on Monday, November 9, 2020. The petition of case No. 92/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Burhanudin, a lecturer who entered the selection of ad hocjudges of the Court of Criminal Acts of Corruption in 2016. He challenges Article 13 letter a of the Judicial Commission Law.

At the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra, attorney Zainal Arifin Hoesein said that the Petitioner felt to have harmed by Article 13 letter a of the Judicial Commission Law along the phrase “and ad hoc judges.” “The provision in the a quo law, which equates ad hoc judges with supreme justices is a constitutional violation of Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” he said.

The Petitioner believes ad hoc judges in the Supreme Court are not equal to supreme justices in terms of status, functions, and authorities. Ad hoc judges, especially in the anti-corruption court, used to be selected by the Supreme Court following the Anti-Corruption Court Law, before the provision in the Judicial Commission Law came into effect. The older law had given ad hoc judge candidates a legal certainty to enter the selection following their qualifications.

Zainal further explained that the anti-corruption court is under the Supreme Court as a special court under the general court, which was established to help the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) eradicate corruption in the country. Therefore, ad hoc judges are inseparable from the authorities of the Supreme Court as stipulated in the 1945 Constitution and the Judicial Powers Law.

However, Article 13 letter a of the a quo law is an indication that the legislature has expanded the Judicial Commission’s authority from proposing supreme justices to also proposing ad hoc justices in the Supreme Court. in Therefore, equating the selection of supreme justices to that of ad hoc justices, while both have structural and status differences, is a violation of the values of justice.

In addition, based on the provision of Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 005/PUU-IV/2006 on August 23, 2006 and No. 43/PUUXIII/2015 on October 7, 2015, Article 13 letter a of Law No. 18 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission has been declared unconstitutional. Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Constitutional Court declare Article 13 letter a of the Judicial Commission Law contrary to Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

In response, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked the Petitoner to explain the correlation between his legal standing and the phrase “and ad hoc judges” in Article 13 letter a of the Judicial Commission Law. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih urged the Petitioner to elaborate on his legal standing and constitutional impairment, an advised echoed by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Nur R.
PR: Andhini S. F.

Photographer: Gani
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/14/2020 09:52 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---