Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 454 Download : 383

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

After the amendment to the Constitutional Court Law, constitutional court judges would be dismissed honorably when they attain the age of 70 (seventy) years old. Problem arises, where the transitional provisions of the third amendment to the Constitutional Court Law are not applicable prospectively but retroactively. Hence, the implementation of the amendment to the term of office of constitutional court judges also brings an impact on the incumbent constitutional judges in the Constitutional Court. This study had three objectives. First, to identify the underlying reasons (ratio-legis) for the amendment to the term of office of constitutional court judges to the maximum age limit of 70 years. Second, to analyze the implications of arranging a maximum age limit of 70 years for the position of constitutional court judges. Third, to recommend alternative arrangements for the term of office of constitutional court judges in Indonesia. This was a legal doctrinal research with a qualitative analysis. The results showed that (1) the reasons for the amendment to the term of office of constitutional court judges are due to the open legal policy, globalization and efforts to build the pro-majoritarian power in the Constitutional Court. (2) This amendment brings implications, i.e., the distortion of judicial independence, conflicts of interest and a declined public trust. (3) Improvements can be made by revising the transitional provisions and trying other alternatives by arranging the term of office of the judges through the constitution.

Keywords

Term of Office Constitutional Court Judges Judicial Independence

Article Details

References

  1. Ali, Mahrus. “Mahkamah Konstitusi Dan Penafsiran Hukum Yang Progresif.” Jurnal Konstitusi 7, no. 1 (2010). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk%25x.
  2. Anggono, Bayu Dwi. “The Tenure Arrangement of Primary Constitutional Organ Leaders in Indonesian Constitutional System.” Constitutional Review 2, no. 1 (2016). https://doi.org/DOI: https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev212.
  3. Butt, Simon. The Constitutional Court and Democracy in Indonesia. Leiden: Brill NV, 2015.
  4. Clark, Tom S. The Limits of Judicial Independence. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  5. Crouch, Melissa. “The Challenges for Court Reform after Authoritarian Rule: The Role of Specialized Courts in Indonesia.” Constitutional Review 7, no. 1 (2021). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/consrev711.
  6. Feld, Lars P, and Stefan Voigt. “Economic Growth and Judicial Independence: Cross Country Evidence Using a New Set of Indicators.” Europan Journal of Political Economy 9 (2003). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2015.01.004.
  7. Garoupa, Nuno, and Tom Ginsburg. “Guarding the Guardians: Judicail Councils and Judicial Independence.” John M. Olin Law and Economic Working Paper No. 444, Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper No. 250. Chicago, 2008.
  8. Garoupa, Nuno, and Tom Ginsburg. “The Comparative Law and Economics of Judicial Councils.” Barkeley Journal of International Law 27, no. 3 (2009). https://doi.org/https://ssrn.com/abstract=1299887.
  9. Ginsburg, Tom, and Aziz Z. Huq. How to Save a Constitutional Democracy. United States of America: University of Chicago Press, 2018.
  10. Ginsburg, Tom, and Tamir Moustafa. Rule by Law, The Politics of Courts in Authoritarian Regimes. U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
  11. Ibnu Sina Chandranegara. Kemerdekaan Kekuasaan Kehakiman Pasca Transisi Politik: Dinamika Penuangan Dan Implementasinya. Jakarta: UM Jakarta Press, 2018.
  12. Kosar, David, and Katarina Sipulova. “The Strasbourg Court Meets Abusive Constitutionalism: Baka v. Hungary and the Rule of Law.” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 10, no. 1 (2018). https://doi.org/DOI 10.1007/s40803-017-0065-y.
  13. Larkins, Christoper M. “Judicial Independence and Democratization; A Theoritical and Conceptual Analysys.” The American Journal of Comparative Law XLIV, no. 4 (1996). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/840623.
  14. Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. United States of America: Crown Publishing, 2018.
  15. Masterman, Roger. The Separation of Powers in the Contemporary Constitution; Judicial Competence and Independence in the United Kingdom. U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
  16. Neudorf, Lorne. The Dynamics of Judicial Independence, A Comparative Study of Courts in Malaysia and Pakistan. Canada: Springer International Publishing, 2017.
  17. Pan Mohamad Faiz. “A Critical Analysis of Judicial Appointment Process and Tenure of Constitutional Justice in Indonesia.” Hasanuddin Law Review 2, no. 2 (2016): 161. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.20956/halrev.v1i2.301.
  18. Peerenboom, Randall, ed. Judicial Independence in China: Lessons for Global Rule of Law Promotion. U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2010.
  19. “Processed by the Author by Referring to Several Conditions Related to the Terms of Office of Constitutional Court Judges in Various Countries. Comparisons Were Done Using a Random Sampling Method That Represented the Arrangement of Court in Several Parts ,” n.d.
  20. Redish, Martin. Judicial Independence and the American Constitution; A Democratic Paradox. California: Stanford Law Books, 2017.
  21. Republik Indonesia. Article 23 letter (c) of Law No 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 concerning the Constitutional Court (n.d.).
  22. Republik Indonesia. Article 24C paragraph (6) of the 1945 Constitution (n.d.).
  23. Republik Indonesia. Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 6/PUU-III/2005, Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 7/PUU-XI/2013, Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 30, 74/PUU-XII/2014, and Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 26/PUU-VII/2009 (n.d.).
  24. Richardson, Kristy. “A Definition of Judicial Independence.” The University of New England Law Journal 2, no. 1 (2005). https://doi.org/https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/1126.
  25. Satriawan, Iwan, and Tanto Lailam. “Open Legal Policy in the Decision of the Constitutional Court and Law Formation.” Jurnal Konstitusi 16, no. 3 (2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31078/jk1636.
  26. Seibert-Fohr, Anja, ed. Judicial Independence in Transition. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2012.
  27. Shetreet, Shimon. Judges on Trial; The Independence and Accountability of the English Judiciary. U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2013.
  28. Shugerman, Jed Handelsman. The People’s Courts; Pursuing Judicial Independence in America. United States of America: Harvard University Press, 2012.
  29. Skaar, Elin. Judicial Independence and Human Rights in Latin America; Violations, Politics, and Prosecution. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011.
  30. Spitzer, Robert J., and Michael A. Genovese. The Presidency and the Constitution; Cases and Controversies. New York: Palgrave Mac Millan, 2005.
  31. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Naskah Komprehensif Buku (VI) Perubahan UUD 1945. Jakarta: MKRI, 2010.
  32. “The Survey Was Conducted by the Author to Determine the Level of Public Trust in the Constitutional Court before and after the Law Amendment. The Respondents Were Selected by a Random Sampling Technique. There Were a Total of 300 Respondents, Consisting O,” n.d.
  33. Wyrzykowski, Miroslav. “Experiencing the Unimaginable: The Collapse of the Rule of Law in Poland.” Hague Journal on the Rule of Law 11, no. 2 (2019). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-019-00124-z.