Judicial Commission Supervision For Judges Behaviour In Independent Judiciary

摘要

ABSTRACT: The study aims to identify and explain the relevance of the substantive law of the Judicial Commission in conducting supervision to judges with the principles of independent judicial power, including the models used in monitoring the behavior of the Judicial Commission judges, and the impact of monitoring the behavior of judges. The study was conducted in Jakarta, the place of the Judicial Commission, as the targeted institution, because it focuses in supervising the activities of judges of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional. The type of research is empirical legal research through the three-level approaches of philosophy, dogmatic, and theoretical laws. The research sample was determined by purposive sampling technique. Data collection instruments used where interviews and documentation collection then analyzed qualitatively. Results of the study revealed that the substance of the law governing the authority of the Judicial Commission to supervise the activity of judges is broadly in line with the principle of independent judicial power, except the setting of membership composition and procedures of decision making of Honorary Judges. This is potentially affecting the independence of the judicial power. Judicial Commission applies the eclectic model of supervision, by combining the model of supervision; preventive (but not include the recruitment, promotion and transfer), limited repressive, and limited external supervision models (external quasi). The Model of Judicial Commission monitoring for the behavior of judges is not included in the checks and balances surveillance. The Supervision of the Judicial Commission for activity of judges is not implemented significantly in the form of supervisory authority (especially the preventive acts), the application of sanctions toward judges who violate the KEPPH, human resources (quantitatively), and yustisiabelen sound impact. It is recommended to the government and the Parliament to change the Article 22F par. 2 on the composition of 4 Commissioners and 3 justices to 3 Commissioners, 3 justices, and 3 elements of the society. Also, it is recommended to amend the Law No.18 of 2011 to expand the Judicial Commission oversight duties including the recruitment, the promotion, the transfer of judges, and in order to confirm the existence of the Judicial Commission as an external supervisor. The consequence is that the place of the Judicial Commission should be moved to outside the chapter of the judicial authority. In order to improve more on the effectiveness of supervision the activity of judges, it is necessary to have capacity building on the Judicial Commission. It is recommended to the government and parliament to significantly increase the budget of the Judicial Commission. Also, the Judicial Commission should improve more on the coordination, cooperation with the Supreme Court so that recommendation on more sanctions is effective.