---

Thursday, June 3, 2021 | 19:58 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) was supposed to hear the House (DPR), the Government, and the Relevant Parties (the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission) for the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 18 of 2011 on the Amendment to Law No. 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission on Thursday, June 3, 2021. However, the hearing was postponed because the House didn’t attend and the Government wasn’t ready with their testimony.

The petition of case No. 92/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by Burhanudin, a lecturer who entered the selection of ad hoc judges of the Court of Criminal Acts of Corruption in 2016. He challenges Article 13 letter a of the Judicial Commission Law.

“According to the Registrar Office’s records, all parties are present except for the House. And it has informed [us] that the Government and the Supreme Court aren’t ready with their testimonies while the Judicial Commission are. [We were scheduled] to hear the House and the Government. Therefore, the hearing cannot continue and will resume on Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 11:00 WIB,” said Chief Justice Anwar Usman before concluding the hearing.

Also read:

Judicial Commission’s Authority to Nominate Ad Hoc Judges Challenged

Petitioner of Judicial Commission’s Authority Revises Constitutional Impairment 

At the previous hearing, attorney Zainal Arifin Hoesein said the Petitioner had changed the touchstones to 24B paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and elaborated Article 13 letter a of the Judicial Commission Law as well as the touchstones. He had also elaborated his constitutional impairment in relation to the phrase “and ad hoc judges” in Article 13 letter a of the Judicial Commission Law, which is related to the authority of the Judicial Commission in the selection of ad hoc judge candidates in the Supreme Court.

He believes that pursuant the Judicial Commission doesn’t have a constitutional authority to select ad hoc judges. Article 24B paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution limits the Judicial Commission’s authority to only nominating Supreme Court justices, not other judges, including ad hoc judges. Therefore, the Petitioner’s constitutional right to legal protection and fair legal certainty as regulated in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution has been violated by the phrase “and ad hoc judges” in Article 13 letter a of the Judicial Commission Law.

The Petitioner believes 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. 

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 6/8/2021 13:13 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.

---