Ad Hoc Justice Crisis

KOMPAS/WISNU WIDIANTORO

Chief Justice Muhammad Syarifuddin gave his remarks after being elected as Chief Justice of the 2020-2025 Period in the Special Plenary Session on Election of Chief Justice at the Supreme Court Building, Jakarta, Monday (6/4/2020).

The potential crisis of ad hoc justices on the Supreme Court is surprising. This event could have been anticipated.

The condition is quite concerning and shows that there are problems in the governance and planning of human resource recruitment. The retirement of a number of ad hoc justices on corruption should have be known beforehand. The solution could have been planned in advance because the data is open and available. For this reason, it is natural for the public to be surprised as to why there would be a shortage of ad hoc justices on corruption.

As reported, four ad hoc justices retired on July 22. After their retirement, the Supreme Court had only three ad hoc justices on corruption. The selection process takes time and requires funding. The Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission in discussions to find a solution. There are a lot of corruption cases before the Supreme Court.

Also read:

> Syarifuddin: Digital Justice Transformation Accelerated

> Progressive and Breakthrough Step

We hope that the crisis of ad hoc justices on the court is not due to the inharmonious relationship between it and the Judicial Commission. The two institutions, even though they both have constitutional authority, have often been at odds in the past.

The Supreme Court and judicial power are independent and free from the intervention of other institutions. However, in reality, there are also judicial power holders who are not independent. The fact that a number of justices were arrested by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) certainly gives an indication that independence of justices has not been fully realized.

KOMPAS/HERU SRI KUMORO

President Joko Widodo delivered a speech at a special session with the agenda of submitting the 2019 Indonesian Supreme Court Annual Report in Jakarta, Wednesday (26/2/2020).

The existence of the Judicial Commission, whose task is interpreted as supervising judicial power, has caused reluctance from the judicial powers, whose independence is guaranteed from any influence from other institutions. Justices have filed several petitions for judicial review of the Judicial Commission Law to defend the principle of the "independence of judicial power".

The justices, through their decisions, can contribute to freeing the country from the robbery of public funds through corruption.

We hope that the imperfect relationship between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission by constitutional design will not be an obstacle in the recruitment of ad hoc justices on corruption. The recruitment of new ad hoc justices must be carried out so that the handling of corruption cases is not hampered. Now that the KPK has been weakened – in the eyes of some parties – by the deactivation of 51 of its employees, there should not be another crisis of ad hoc justices for corruption cases. The presence of ad hoc justices is needed. An ad hoc justice should has a progressive mind to fight corruption in the country. The justices, through their decisions, can contribute to freeing the country from the robbery of public funds through corruption.

Also read:

> Judicial Evaluation Urgently Needed

> Additional Sanctions as a Deterrent

Progressive judges may dare to break the trend of the “guided corruption eradication perspective” that seems to have become a trend in the eradication of corruption. In guided corruption eradication, who should be taken to court and who should be protected is predetermined. If this trend is true, it violates the principle of equality before the law and hampers the nation’s already weakened corruption eradication efforts.

(This article was translated by Hendarsyah Tarmizi)