Achmad Shiva’ul Haq
Asjach
Scholar ID, Sinta ID, Scopus ID, WoS ID
In the context of ethical law
enforcement in Indonesia, the judicial profession is one of the most
strategically important fields of analysis, as judges play a central role in
upholding law and justice. Judges are not only tasked with applying legal norms
but also serve as symbols of morality and integrity within the judiciary.
Therefore, the existence of a Judicial Honor Council or ethical supervisory
body within the judicial environment is often referred to as the “heart” of the
professional organization, as it determines whether the moral integrity of law
enforcement officers is maintained. In a rule-of-law state (rechtstaat),
the legitimacy of judicial power is highly dependent on public trust in the
independence and integrity of judges (Asshiddiqie, 2006).
However, the effectiveness of
judicial code of ethics enforcement in Indonesia still faces various
challenges, particularly concerning supervisory independence, transparency, and
consistency in sanction enforcement. Although Indonesia has established a relatively
comprehensive ethical oversight system, violations of judicial ethics still
frequently occur and, in some cases, escalate into criminal acts of corruption.
This condition indicates that judicial professional ethics issues are not only
normative in nature but also closely related to legal culture, personal
integrity, and the effectiveness of institutional oversight mechanisms.
Within the Indonesian judicial
system, ethical supervision of judges is carried out by the Supreme Court of
the Republic of Indonesia through internal supervisory mechanisms and by the
Judicial Commission as an external oversight body. Normatively, this arrangement
is reflected in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, Law Number
48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power, and Law Number 18 of 2011 concerning
Amendments to Law Number 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission. The Judicial
Commission is granted authority to maintain and uphold the honor, dignity, and
behavior of judges (Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 18 of 2011
concerning the Judicial Commission).
Conceptually, this system shows that
Indonesia has adopted a dual supervision mechanism, namely internal and
external oversight. Internal supervision is conducted by the Supreme Court
Supervisory Agency and the Judges’ Honorary Council, while external supervision
is carried out by the Judicial Commission through receiving public complaints,
examining alleged ethical violations, and issuing recommendations for sanctions
against judges found guilty of violating the code of ethics. This dual
oversight system is essentially designed to create a checks and balances
mechanism so that judicial power remains independent while still being
accountable to the public (Marzuki, 2021).
However, in practice, the
effectiveness of internal oversight is often considered insufficient to ensure
judicial integrity. One of the main reasons is the tendency toward
institutional solidarity (corporate solidarity) within the judiciary.
Internal supervision is frequently perceived as lacking independence because it
is carried out by fellow judicial officers who share structural and collegial
relationships. This condition may create conflicts of interest and result in
less objective enforcement of the judicial code of ethics. Not infrequently,
serious ethical violations are only sanctioned lightly at the administrative
level, even though such conduct may significantly damage public trust in the
judiciary (Rahardjo, 2009).
The phenomenon of sting operations (operasi
tangkap tangan/OTT) involving judges conducted by the Corruption
Eradication Commission (KPK) demonstrates that internal supervision has not
been fully effective in preventing abuse of office and corrupt practices within
the judiciary. These cases indicate that judicial ethical violations are not
merely administrative in nature but may also develop into criminal acts of
corruption that undermine the principles of judicial independence and
impartiality. From a professional ethics perspective, corrupt conduct by judges
constitutes a serious violation, as judges are expected to embody the values of
justice, honesty, and legal morality (Hamzah, 2008).
In such circumstances, the existence
of external oversight becomes highly important as a form of control over
judicial power. External supervision is necessary to ensure that judges do not
abuse their independence. In a democratic rule-of-law state, judicial
independence does not imply unchecked power without oversight, but rather
freedom that is still constrained by principles of accountability and
professional ethics (Asshiddiqie, 2006).
Nevertheless, external oversight must
not be understood as an intervention in judicial independence in adjudicating
cases. Judicial independence is a fundamental principle that must be preserved
to ensure that court decisions are free from political, economic, or other
external pressures. Therefore, external supervision should focus on the ethical
conduct and personal integrity of judges, rather than the substance of judicial
decisions. In other words, external oversight must aim to ensure that judges perform
their duties honestly, professionally, and free from abuse of authority.
In the author’s view, internal
supervision alone is insufficient to ensure judicial integrity in Indonesia.
Stronger, more transparent, and more independent external legal oversight is
required. This is important because the judicial profession is directly linked
to public interests and the legitimacy of the rule of law. However,
strengthening external supervision must also be accompanied by internal reform
within the judiciary, such as improving ethical culture, enhancing transparency
in ethical examination procedures, protecting whistleblowers, and imposing firm
and consistent sanctions for ethical violations.
In addition, ethics education should
be strengthened from the recruitment stage through the career development of
judges. Integrity cannot be built solely through the threat of sanctions but
must also be shaped through moral character development and a strong
professional culture. In this regard, the Judicial Honor Council or ethical
supervisory body does not only function as a “punisher” but also as a guardian
of professional ethical values and a builder of an integrity culture within the
judiciary (Shidarta, 2006).
Moreover, transparency in ethical
violation proceedings is a crucial factor in enhancing public trust in the
judiciary. The public needs to be assured that every ethical violation by
judges is processed objectively and not concealed in order to protect institutional
image. Such transparency is essential so that ethical supervision does not
merely become a formal administrative procedure but truly functions as a
mechanism of public accountability.
Ultimately, the effectiveness of
judicial professional ethics enforcement significantly determines the quality
of law enforcement in Indonesia. If ethical supervision is weak, public trust
in the judiciary will continue to decline, and the legitimacy of the rule of
law may be undermined. Conversely, if internal and external supervision can
operate synergistically, independently, and accountably, judicial integrity
will be better ensured, and the constitutional goal of achieving justice can be
optimally realized. Thus, strengthening the judicial ethical supervision system
is not only an institutional necessity but also an essential requirement for
establishing the supremacy of law and a healthy democracy in Indonesia.
References
Asshiddiqie, J. (2006). Pengantar
ilmu hukum tata negara. Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah
Konstitusi RI.
Hamzah, A. (2008). Hukum acara
pidana Indonesia. Sinar Grafika.
Marzuki, P. M. (2021). Pengantar
ilmu hukum. Kencana.
Rahardjo, S. (2009). Penegakan
hukum: Suatu tinjauan sosiologis. Genta Publishing.
Shidarta. (2006). Moralitas
profesi hukum: Suatu tawaran kerangka berpikir. Refika Aditama.
The 1945 Constitution of the Republic
of Indonesia.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia
Number 18 of 2011 concerning Amendments to Law Number 22 of 2004 concerning the
Judicial Commission.
Post a Comment