RECONSTRUCTION OF NORMS ON AD HOC JUDGES REGULATION OF CORRUPTION COURTS THAT ARE IDEAL IN REALIZING INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIAL POWER

Abstract

The principle of independence of judicial power is an absolute right owned by judges in deciding cases; this principle is in the form of judges' independence in making decisions without intervention by any party outside the judicial system. This is referred to as institutional independence, but what is no less critical is personal autonomy, which is no less important, namely, tenure and career guarantees for judges. In Article 10 paragraph (5) of Law Number 46 of 2009 concerning the Court of Criminal Acts of Corruption and the Decision of the Judicial Review of the Constitutional Court in the decision Number 85/PUU-XVIII/2020 still provides for the limitation of the period of service for ad hoc judges in corruption court. This creates career uncertainty and demotivation related to the lack of guarantees of independence and equality as a form of state appreciation to ad hoc judges for corruption in carrying out their duties. This research is legal research using a normative juridical approach; the data used are primary data and secondary data, which are analyzed using quantitative analysis. The results of the study are: First, in the provisions of Article 10 paragraph (5) of Law No. 46 of 2009 concerning the Court of Criminal Acts of Corruption and the Judicial Review Decision of the Constitutional Court in the decision Number 85/PUU-XVIII/2020 still formulating the periodization of office for ad hoc judges in court corruption, where the periodization of the term of office is contrary to the principle of independence of judicial power. Second, it must formulate a new norm as a guarantee for ad hoc judges in criminal courts that reflects the principle of independence of judicial power for ad hoc judges.

Keywords

• judge
• court
• corruption
• independence