Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim

Suparto Suparto

doi:10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252

Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim

Suparto Suparto⁽¹⁾

(1) Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru, Indonesia
email

Corresponding Author

Abstract

The Supreme Court conducted a selection of judges without the involvement of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee deemed the recruitment was violating the law since it was not involving them in the process. While the Supreme Court viewed that the implementation guidelines for the mutual regulation of the Judiciary Committee and Supreme Court was yet to be existed, while the need for fresh judges was deemed as urgent at that time. Based on that premise, the Supreme Court conducted the recruitment and appointment of judges, several supreme court judges and registrars were conducting a judicial review on the Law No. 49 of 2009, Law No. 50 of 2009, and Law No. 51 of 2009.The Constitutional Court granted their plea with Stipulation No. 43/PUU-XIII/2015.One of the points of considerations of the constitutional judges was the involvement of Judiciary Committee on the recruitment of judges was deemed to disrupt the independency of the Supreme Court. Actually, the involvement of the Judiciary Committee in the selection of judges will not intrude the independency of the judicial power or the judge itself. The independency of judges will be disrupted if the Judiciary Committee is intervening with the technical aspect of judicial power which includescross-examination, trial, and the verdict on a case.

Keywords

Recruitment; Judge; Independency; Judicial Power

DOI

10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252

Published

2020-06-04

How To Cite

APA: Suparto, S. (2020). Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim. SASI, 26(2), 266-279. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252.

IEEE: S. Suparto, "Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim", SASI, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 266-279, Jun. 2020. Accessed on: Apr. 24, 2025. [Online]. Available DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252

Harvard: Suparto, S., (2020). "Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim". SASI, Volume 26(2), pp. 266-279. [Online]. Available DOI: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252 (Accessed on: 24 April 2025)

Chicago: Suparto, Suparto. "Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim." SASI 26, no. 2 (June 4, 2020): 266-279. Accessed April 24, 2025. doi:10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252

Vancouver: Suparto S. Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim. SASI [Internet]. 2020 Jun 4 [cited 2025 Apr 24];26(2):266-279. Available from: https://doi.org/10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252

MLA 8th: Suparto, Suparto. "Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim." SASI, vol. 26, no. 2, 4 Jun. 2020, pp. 266-279, doi:10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252. Accessed 24 Apr. 2025.

BibTeX:

@article{SASI252,
		author = {Suparto Suparto},
		title = {Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim},
		journal = {SASI},
		volume = {26},
		number = {2},
		year = {2020},
		keywords = {Recruitment; Judge; Independency; Judicial Power},
		abstract = {The Supreme Court conducted a selection of judges without the involvement of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee deemed the recruitment was violating the law since it was not involving them in the process. While the Supreme Court viewed that the implementation guidelines for the mutual regulation of the Judiciary Committee and Supreme Court was yet to be existed, while the need for fresh judges was deemed as urgent at that time. Based on that premise, the Supreme Court conducted the recruitment and appointment of judges, several supreme court judges and registrars were conducting a judicial review on the Law No. 49 of 2009, Law No. 50 of 2009, and Law No. 51 of 2009.The Constitutional Court granted their plea with Stipulation No. 43/PUU-XIII/2015.One of the points of considerations of the constitutional judges was the involvement of Judiciary Committee on the recruitment of judges was deemed to disrupt the independency of the Supreme Court. Actually, the involvement of the Judiciary Committee in the selection of judges will not intrude the independency of the judicial power or the judge itself. The independency of judges will be disrupted if the Judiciary Committee is intervening with the technical aspect of judicial power which includescross-examination, trial, and the verdict on a case.},
				issn = {2614-2961},		pages = {266--279}			doi = {10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252},
				url = {https://fhukum.unpatti.ac.id/jurnal/sasi/article/view/252}
		}

RefWorks:

Citation format: Download Citation:

Buku

[1] Suparto. (2017). Dinamika Hubungan Antara Mahkamah Agung Dengan Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia, Jakarta : Bina Karya.

[2] Syafrinaldi, ed. (2015). Hukum dan Teori Dalam Realita Masyarakat, Pekanbaru : UIR Press.

[3] Syafrinald,. ed. (2018). Problematika Hukum Indonesia Teori dan Praktek, Depok : Raja Grafindo Persada.

[4] Voermans, W. (2012). Komisi Yudisial Di Beberapa Negara Uni Eropa, Jakarta : LeIP.

Jurnal

[5] Faizal, A. (2016). "Politik Hukum Perlindungan Hakim", Jurnal Cita Hukum, 4 (1), 1-14 : 3 https://doi.org/10.15408/jch.v4i1.2621

[6] Mukuan, C. (2016). "Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Dalam Perekrutan Hakim Menurut Undang-Undang No. 22 Tahun 2004 jo Undang-Undang No. 18 Tahun 2011 Tentang Komisi Yudisial", Jurnal Lex Administratum, IV (1), 5-12 : 5.

[7] Permana, T.C.I. (2014). "Eksistensi dan Peran Komisi Yudisial : Pengkajian Konteks Filosofi, Sejarah dan Tujuan Pembentukannya Dalam Dinamika Ketatanegaraan Indonesia", Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 3 (1), 85-100 : 96. https://doi.org/10.25216/JHP.3.1.2014.85-100

[8] Rahmatullah, I. dan Agusty, R.Z. (2016). "Memperkuat Hubungan Antar Lembaga Negara Dalam Bingkai Negara Hukum", Jurnal Salam, 3 (2), 231-244 : 241. https://doi.org/10.15408/sjsbs.v3i2.7856

[9] Sihaloho, M. (2015). "Seleksi Pengangkatan Hakim Dalam Sistem Peradilan Indonesia : Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor. 43/PUU-XII/2015", Jurnal Wawasan Hukum, 33 (2), 204-218 : 216-217. https://doi.org/10.25072/jwy.v33i2.103

[10] Suanro. (2016). "Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Dalam Tafsir Mahkamah Konstitusi ; Kajian Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 43/PUU-XIII/2015", Jurnal Yudisial, 9 (2), 131-150 : 147

[11] Suparto. (2017). "Kedudukan dan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia dan Perbandingannya Dengan Komisi Yudisial Di Beberapa Negara Eropa", Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan,47 (4), 497-516 : 507. https://doi.org/10.21143/.vol47.no4.1585

[12] Ulya, Z. (2016). "Pembatalan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Dalam Rekruitmen Hakim Dikaitkan Dengan Konsep Independensi Hakim (Studi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 43/PUU-XIII/2015", Jurnal Mimbar Hukum, 28 (3), 482-496 : 493. https://doi.org/10.22146/jmh.16686

[13] Wicaksono, E., et.al. (2016). "Yuridis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No.43/PUU-XIII/2015 Tinjauan Tentang Inkonstitusionalitas Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Dalam Melakukan Rekruitmen Hakim Bersama Mahkamah Agung", Diponegoro Law Journal, 5 (4), 1-19 : 13,15.

Full Text: PDF

Article Metrics

Abstract View grafik

: 6930 times
PDF icon PDF

Download : 1225 times

Cited-By:

1. Problematika Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Mahkamah Agung ( Kajian Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 65 P/HUM/2018)
Suparto Suparto
SASI vol: 27 issue: 1 first page: 61 year: 2021
Type: Journal [View Source]

2. Kewenangan Uji Material (Judicial Review) Ketetapan Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi
Lintang Galih Pratiwi
SASI vol: 26 issue: 4 first page: 514 year: 2020
Type: Journal [View Source]


Dublin Core		PKP Metadata Items	Metadata for this Document

1.	Title	Title of document	Kontroversi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Membatalkan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Melakukan Rekrutmen Terhadap Hakim

2.	Creator	Author's name, affiliation, country	Suparto Suparto; Fakultas Hukum Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru; Indonesia

3.	Subject	Discipline(s)

3.	Subject	Keyword(s)	Recruitment; Judge; Independency; Judicial Power

4.	Description	Abstract	The Supreme Court conducted a selection of judges without the involvement of the Judiciary Committee. The Judiciary Committee deemed the recruitment was violating the law since it was not involving them in the process. While the Supreme Court viewed that the implementation guidelines for the mutual regulation of the Judiciary Committee and Supreme Court was yet to be existed, while the need for fresh judges was deemed as urgent at that time. Based on that premise, the Supreme Court conducted the recruitment and appointment of judges, several supreme court judges and registrars were conducting a judicial review on the Law No. 49 of 2009, Law No. 50 of 2009, and Law No. 51 of 2009.The Constitutional Court granted their plea with Stipulation No. 43/PUU-XIII/2015.One of the points of considerations of the constitutional judges was the involvement of Judiciary Committee on the recruitment of judges was deemed to disrupt the independency of the Supreme Court. Actually, the involvement of the Judiciary Committee in the selection of judges will not intrude the independency of the judicial power or the judge itself. The independency of judges will be disrupted if the Judiciary Committee is intervening with the technical aspect of judicial power which includescross-examination, trial, and the verdict on a case.

5.	Publisher	Organizing agency, location	Faculty of Law, Universitas Pattimura

6.	Contributor	Sponsor(s)

7.	Date	(YYYY-MM-DD)	2020-06-04

8.	Type	Status & genre	Peer-reviewed Article

8.	Type	Type

9.	Format	File format	PDF

10.	Identifier	Uniform Resource Identifier	https://fhukum.unpatti.ac.id/jurnal/sasi/article/view/252

10.	Identifier	Digital Object Identifier	10.47268/sasi.v26i2.252

11.	Source	Title; vol., no. (year)	SASI; Vol 26, No 2 (2020): Volume 26 Nomor 2, April - Juni 2020

12.	Language	English=en	en

13.	Relation	Supp. Files

14.	Coverage	Geo-spatial location, chronological period, research sample (gender, age, etc.)

15.	Rights	Copyright and permissions	Copyright: Authors who publish their manuscripts in this Journal agree to the following conditions: 1. The copyright in each article belongs to the author, as well as the right to patent. 2. Authors can enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal. 3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) before and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work. 4. Authors have the right to self-archiving of the article (Author Self-Archiving Policy) License: The SASI Journal is disseminated based on the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license terms. This license allows anyone to copy and redistribute this material in any form or format, compose, modify, and make derivatives of this material for any purpose. You cannot use this material for commercial purposes. You must specify an appropriate name, include a link to the license, and certify that any changes have been made. You can do this in a way that is appropriate but does not imply that the licensor supports you or your use. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.