Constitutional Court Decisions on the Judicial Independence of Other Indonesian Courts

Simon Butt

doi:10.31078/consrev922

Constitutional Court Decisions on the Judicial Independence of Other Indonesian Courts

Simon Butt

Abstract

Judicial independence is a foundational principle of the Indonesian Constitution. It guarantees the independence of all Indonesian courts. However, most of the cases the Constitutional Court has handled relating to judicial independence have concerned the Constitutional Court’s own independence, focusing, for example, on issues of judicial tenure and terms. This paper examines the handful of Constitutional Court decisions about the judicial independence of other courts and judges in Indonesia – that is, non-constitutional courts and judges. It examines what the Constitutional Court has said about judicial independence in relation to these other courts. It then considers whether, by emphasising (perhaps overly) strict observance of judicial independence, theseConstitutional Court decisions compromise effective judicial accountability and administration.

Keywords

Constitutional Court; Corruption; Judicial Commission; Judicial Independence; Supreme Court; Tax Court

Full Text:

PDF

References

Assegaf, Rifqi. “The Supreme Court Reformasi, Independence and the Failure to Ensure Legal Certainty.” In The Politics of Court Reform: Judicial Change and Legal Culture in Indonesia, edited by Melissa Crouch, 31–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.

Awaliyah, Gumanti. “Jubir MA: Indonesia Kekurangan 4.000 Hakim [Supreme Court Spokesperson: Indonesia Short of 4,000 Judges].” Republika.co.id, published July 18, 2018. https://nasional.republika.co.id/berita/nasional/ hukum/18/07/18/pc1xos335-jubir-ma-indonesia-kekurangan-4000-hakim.

Bencze, Matyas, and Gar Yein Ng. How to Measure the Quality of Judicial Reasoning. Springer: Berlin Heidelberg, 2018.

Butt, Simon. “Indonesia’s Criminal Justice System on Trial: The Jessica Wongso Case.” New Criminal Law Review 24, no. 1 (2021): 3–58, https://doi.org/10.1525/ nclr.2021.24.1.3.

Butt, Simon. “What Makes a Good Judge? Perspectives from Indonesia.” Asian Journal of Law and Society 8 (2021): 1–42, https://doi.org/10.1017/als.2020.27.

Butt, Simon and Tim Lindsey. “Economic Reform When the Constitution Matters: Indonesia’s Constitutional Court and Article 33.” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 44, no. 2 (2008): 239–62, https://doi. org/10.1080/00074910802169004.

Butt, Simon and Tim Lindsey. Indonesian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.

Butt, Simon, and Tim Lindsey. “Judicial Mafia: The Courts and State Illegality in Indonesia.” In The State and Illegality in Indonesia, edited by Edward Aspinall and Gerry van Klinken. Leiden: KITLV Press, 2011.

Butt, Simon and Prayekti Murharjanti. “What Constitutes Compliance? Legislative Responses to Constitutional Court Decisions in Indonesia.” International Journal of Constitutional Law 20, no. 1 (January 2022): 428–53, https://doi. org/10.1093/icon/moac014.

Butt, Simon and Nicholas Parsons. “Judicial Review and the Supreme Court in Indonesia: A New Space for Law?” Indonesia 97 (2014): 55–85, https://doi. org/10.5728/indonesia.97.0055.

Chandranegara, Ibnu Sina. Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi [Constitutional Court Procedural Law]. Sinar Grafika, 2021.

Constitutional Court Decision 001-021-022/PUU-I/2003. Constitutional Court Decision 005/PUU-IV/2006. Constitutional Court Decision 012-016-019/PUU-IV/2006. Constitutional Court Decision 28/PUU-IX/2011. Constitutional Court Decision 48/PUU-IX/2011. Constitutional Court Decision 49/PUU-IX/2011. Constitutional Court Decision 37/PUU-X/2012. Constitutional Court Decision 7/PUU-XI/2013. Constitutional Court Decisions 1-2/PUU-XII/2014. Constitutional Court Decision 39/PUU-XIII/2015. Constitutional Court Decision 43/PUU-XIII/2015. Constitutional Court Decision 93/PUU-XV/2017. Constitutional Court Decision 85/PUU-XVIII/2020. Constitutional Court Decision 10/PUU-XVIII/2020. Constitutional Court Decision 85/PUU-XVIII/2020. Constitutional Court Decision 56/PUU-XX/2022. Constitutional Court Decision 57/PUU-XVIII/2022. Constitutional Court Decision 26/PUU-XXI/2023. Constitutional Court Decision 26/PUU-XXI/2023.

Dakolias, Maria and Kimberley L. Thachuk. “Attacking Corruption in the Judiciary: A Critical Process in Judicial Reform.” Wisconsin International Law Journal 18 (2000): 353.

Djatmiko, Hary. “Problematik Sengketa Pajak dalam Peradilan Pajak [Problematic Tax Disputes in Tax Court].” In Putih Hitam Pengadilan Khusus [White Black Special Court], edited by Roejito and Titik Ariyati Winahyu, 318–92. Jakarta: Judicial Commission, 2013.

Hirschl, Ran. Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Hukumonline. “Diminta Hati-Hati, MK Berpotensi Langgar Asas Nemo Judex Ideoneus in Propria Causa [Asked to Be Careful, MK Has the Potential to Violate the Principle of Nemo Judex Ideoneus in Propria Causa].” Hukumonline, published December 8, 2016. https://www.hukumonline. com/berita/a/diminta-hati-hati--mk-berpotensi-langgar-asas-inemo-judex- ideoneus-in-propria-causa-i-lt58492a61665ee/.

Hukumonline. “Kepercayaan Publik Terhadap Pengadilan Masih Lemah [Public Trust in the Courts is Still Weak].” Hukumonline, published March 25, 2013. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/lt51501b6f0b4f5/kepercayaan- publik-terhadap-pengadilan-masih-lemah/.

Hukumonline. “Sampai Kapan Pintu Rekonsiliasi MA Dan KY Tertutup? [How Long Will the Door to Reconciliation Between MA and KY Be Closed?]” published March 15, 2006. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/ hol14538/sampai-kapan-pintu-rekonsiliasi-ma-dan-ky-tertutup?page=all/.

Jakarta Post. “Court Can’t Review Law Says Oetojo.” Jakarta Post, published June 4, 1997.

Law of 1964 on the Judicial Power.

Law No. 6 of 1983 on the General Tax Rules and Procedures. Law No. 14 of 1985 on the Supreme Court.

Law No. 2 of 1986 on the General Courts.

Law No. 14 of 2022 on the Tax Court.

Law No. 48 of 2009 on the Judicial Power.

Lev, Daniel S. “Judicial Authority and the Struggle for an Indonesian Rechtsstaat.” Law and Society Review 13 (1978): 37–71, https://doi.org/10.2307/3053242.

Mahkamah Agung [Supreme Court]. Blueprint for the Reform of the Supreme Court of Indonesia. Jakarta: Supreme Court of Indonesia, 2003.

Mahkamah Agung [Supreme Court]. Laporan Tahunan 2014 [Annual Report 2014]. Jakarta: Mahkamah Agung, 2015.

Mahkamah Agung [Supreme Court]. Laporan Tahunan 2015 [Annual Report 2015]. Jakarta: Mahkamah Agung, 2016.

Mahkamah Agung [Supreme Court]. Laporan Tahunan 2016 [Annual Report 2016]. Jakarta: Mahkamah Agung, 2017.

Maladi, Yanis. “Benturan Asas Nemo Judex Idoneus in Propria Causa dan Asas Ius Curia Novit [The Clash of the Principle of Nemo Judex Idoneus in Propria Causa and the Principle of Ius Curia Novit].” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 2 (2010): 1–18, https://doi.org/10.31078/jk721.

McIntyre, Joe. “Evaluating Judicial Performance Evaluation: A Conceptual Analysis.” Oñati Socio-Legal Series 4, no. 5 (2014): 898–926, https://ssrn. com/abstract=2533854.

Media Indonesia. “Kepercayaan Publik Terhadap Lembaga Peradilan Menurun Drastis Sumber [Public Trust in Judicial Institutions Declines Drastically Source].” Media Indonesia, published June 17, 2016. https://mediaindonesia. com/politik-dan-hukum/51485/kepercayaan-publik-terhadap-lembaga- peradilan-menurun-drastis.

Riddell, Troy, Lori Hausegger, and Matthew Hennigar. “Evaluating Federally Appointed Judges in Canada: Analyzing the Controversy.” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 50, no. 2 (2012): 403, 10, 23, https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.1025.

Sahbani, Agus. “13 Tahun Berkiprah, KY Telah Usulkan 657 Hakim Dijatuhi Sanksi [13 Years of Operation, KY Has Proposed 657 Judges to be Sanctioned].” Hukumonline, published August 16, 2018. https://www.hukumonline.com/ berita/baca/lt5b74841ee2ad3/13-tahun-berkiprah--ky-telah-usulkan-657- hakim-dijatuhi-sanksi.

Sahbani, Agus. “2019, MA Hanya Tindak Lanjuti 10 Usulan Sanksi Hakim [2019, The Supreme Court Only Followed Up on 10 Judges’ Sanction Proposals].” Hukumonline, published December 26, 2019. https://www.hukumonline. com/berita/baca/lt5e048ddf0ce81/2019--ma-hanya-tindak-lanjuti-10-usulan- sanksi-hakim?r=9&p=8&q=%22MKH%22&rs=1847&re=2021.

Suara Pembaruan. “Tajuk Rencana: Negara Hukum Bukan ‘Negara Undang-Undang [Editorial: The State of Law is Not a ‘State of Laws].” Suara Pembaruan, published November 14, 1996.

Supreme Court. Supreme Court Annual Report 2019. Jakarta: Supreme Court, 2020.

Supreme Court v. Judicial Commission (2006).

Tehusijarana, Karina M. “Supreme Court Snubs Most Judicial Commission’s Recommendations.” The Jakarta Post, published January 4, 2019. https://www. thejakartapost.com/news/2019/01/04/supreme-court-snubs-most-judicial- commissions-recommendations.html.

Vrushi, Jon. Global Corruption Barometer Asia 2020: Indonesia. Jakarta: Transparency International Indonesia, 2020.

Yasin, Muhamad. “Antara Definisi dan Praktik Rule of Law di Indonesia [Between the Definition and Practice of the Rule of Law in Indonesia].” Hukumonline, published April 23, 2021. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/baca/ lt5a1c25c633cb6/kisah-japin-dalam-penegakan-hukum-perkebunan.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev922