A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT PROCESS AND TENURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE IN INDONESIA
* Published in Hasanuddin Law Review, Vol. 2, Issue 2, August 2016, pp. 152-169
Abstract: The judicial appointment process is one of essential elements for maintaining judicial independence and public confidence of a court. This article analyses the practices of judicial appointment process exercised by three different main state institutions in selecting constitutional justice in Indonesia where the mechanism and process for selecting them have been implemented differently. It also examines the tenure of constitutional justice, which is a five-year term and can be renewed for one term only, that may lead to another problem concerning the reselection process of incumbent constitutional justices for their second term. The article concludes that the judicial appointment process and tenure of constitutional justice in Indonesia have to be improved. It suggests that if the proposing state institutions could not meet the principles of transparency, participation, objective and accountable required by the Constitutional Court Law, the judicial appointment process should be conducted by creating an independent Selection Committee or establishing a cooperation with the Judicial Commission. Additionally, the tenure of constitutional justices should also be revised for a unrenewable term with a longer period of nine or twelve years.
Keywords: Constitutional Court, Constitutional Justice, Judicial Appointment, Tenure
Download: here.
Abstract: One of important mechanisms considered effective to protect civil and political rights of the citizens in Indonesia is constitutional review. This mechanism was created after the constitutional reform by establishing the new Constitutional Court in 2003 as an independent and separate court from the Supreme Court. This article examines the development of human rights guaranteed in the Indonesian Constitution. It also provides a critical analysis of the Constitutional Court’s role in protecting civil and political rights in Indonesia through its landmark decisions on five categories, namely: (1) freedom of assembly and association; (2) freedom of opinion, speech and expression; (3) freedom of religion; (4) right to life; and (5) due process of law. This research was conducted based on qualitative research methodology. It used a non-doctrinal approach by researching the socio-political impacts of the Constitutional Court’s decisions. Although there are still inconsistencies in its decisions, the research concludes that the Constitutional Court has taken a step forward for a better protection of civil and political rights in Indonesia that never existed prior to the reform.
Abstract: A jurisdiction of the Indonesian Constitutional Court concerning constitutional adjudication is only limited to review the constitutionality of national law. There is no mechanism for challenging any decision or action made by public authorities that violate fundamental rights enshrined in the Indonesian Constitution. This article argues that constitutional complaint and constitutional question might be adopted as new jurisdictions of the Indonesian Constitutional Court in order to strengthen the protection of fundamental rights of its citizen. It also identifies main problems that will be faced by the Constitutional Court in exercising constitutional complaint and constitutional question. For instance, the Court will be burdened with too many cases as experienced by other countries. A clear mechanism for filtering applications lodged to the Constitutional Court and the time limit for deciding cases are important elements that have to be regulated to overcome the problems. In addition, the institutional structure of the Constitutional Court has to be improved, particularly to support its decision-making process.
Abstrak: Perubahan transformatif terhadap Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 telah membentuk suatu institusi pengadilan yang dikenal dengan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Lembaga ini dipercaya dalam menjalankan peran yang strategis dalam sistem pluralisme hukum Indonesia, khususnya di ranah pengujian konstitusionalitas undang-undang dan perlindungan hak konstitusional. Namun demikian, performa Mahkamah Konstitusi juga telah terlepas dari kontroversi. Hal tersebut muncul karena Mahkamah Konstitusi dinilai memberikan perhatian pada paradigma sosiologi hukum yang lebih mengedepankan keadilan substantif, namun sedikit memberikan pengakuan terhadap keadilan prosedural. Kritik utama terhadap Mahkamah Konsitusi ditujukan terhadap sifat dasar Mahkamah yang dianggap telah masuk ke dalam praktik judicial activism. Tulisan ini membahas mengenai dimensi judicial activism yang digunakan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi sebagai dasar untuk melindungi hak konstitusional warga negara melalui putusan-putusannya. Selain itu, tulisan ini juga menganalisa mengenai sejauh manajudicial activism dapat memperoleh justifikasi dalam proses pembuatan putusan di Mahkamah Konstitusi.
Pan Mohamad Faiz, S.H., M.C.L., Ph.D. 