Abstract
This research is normative legal research. The objective of this research is firstly to clarify whether the essence of constitutional court’s judges is not included in the term of judge in the 1945 constitution and Law number 24 2003 on judicial commission. Secondly, to know how model designs of controlling judges of constitutional court are after the issuance of Constitutional court’s decision Number 005/PUU-IV/2006. The conclusion of research are the judges of constitutional court are regular judges bound to all judge regulations in Indonesia, because Indonesian constitution does not recognize different typologies of judges, the note of PAH I BP MPR that formulated amendment of the 1945 constitution the discussion surrounding the typologies of judges never took place; and the legal scholars, generally tend to generalize judges to include judges of constitutional courts. The control of constitutional court necessary to adopt integrated control system, that is internal control is done by Constitutional Court and external supervision mechanism conducted by external independent department, it is Judicial Commission.Based on those findings, in implementing an integrated supervision mechanism of Constitutional Court’s Judges an amendment to the 1945 Constitution is recommended and revising the Law number 22 of 2004 on Judicial Commission and law number 24 of 2003 on Constitutional Court is urgently needed. Key words: control on justice of Constitutional Court, the system of judge control, an integrated supervision mechanism
Highlights
It should be recognised that judicial independence does not render the judges free from public accounttability, the press and other institutions should be aware of the potential conflict between judicial independence and excessive pressure on judges
“Tinjauan Yuridis tentang Mahkamah Agung dan High Court od Australia dalam Kaitannya dengan Penegakkan Hukum (Rule of Law)”
Summary
Konstitusi (MK) Nomor 005/PUU-IV/2006”, Jurnal Hukum Vol 1 No 2 Desember 2007, Universitas Bung. Dalam rangka merealisasikan gagasan tersebut dibentuklah Komisi Yudisial (selanjutnya disebut KY) yang diharapkan menjadi external auditor, yang dapat mengimbangi pelaksana kekuasaan kehakiman.[11]. Ahmad Ashar, ”Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial dalam Pengangkatan Hakim Agung Berdasarkan pada UU Nomor. 22 Tahun 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial”, Jurnal DAHA, Vol I No 42 Januari 2009, hlm. Kekuasaan Kehakiman di Indonesia”, Jurnal Hukum Vol. Lihat Astriyani, “Mewujudkan Komisi Yudisial yang Ideal utuk Menjaga dan Menegakkan Kehormatan serta. Zainal Arifin Mochtar bahwa Komisi Yudisial bersifat mandiri, mempunyai kewenangan pokok mengusulkan pengangkatan Hakim Agung, juga memiliki wewenang lain dalam rangka menjaga dan menegakkan kehormatan, keluhuran martabat, serta perilaku hakim. Dengan frasa ”dalam rangka menjaga dan menegakkan kehormatan, keluhuran martabat, serta perilaku hakim. Menurut Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK), dalam batas-batas tertentu dapat diartikan sebagai pengawasan, yaitu pengawasan terhadap individu fungsionaris hakim lembaga peradilan.[13]. Menurut MA, pengawasan KY selama ini yang memanggil beberapa Hakim Agung, dalam hubungan dengan perkara yang telah diadilinya telah mengakibatkan terganggunya hak konstitusional Hakim
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
