On Saturday (3/12/2022), MYMA FH UNAIR held a webinar entitled “Removal of Term Periodization of Constitutional Court Judges”. There two speakers were presented at the academic activity. The first is Former Indonesian Constitutional Justice Dr. I Dewa Gede Palguna and UNAIR Constitutional Law Expert Dr. Radian Salman.
Palguna said that the elimination of the term periodization of constitutional justices emerged through the Third Amendment to the Constitutional Court Law, namely Law 7/2020. According to Article 15 paragraph (2) letter (d), one of the requirements to become a constitutional judge is that the minimum age is 55 years. This is an increase from the previous provision of 47 years.
“In the past, the term of office for constitutional judges was five years, and they could be re-elected for one more term. However, in Law 7/2020, the provision has been changed so that judges can serve until they are 70. So they have a total of 15 years in office, and the five-year period is removed,” said the alumni of Udayana University.
Palguna said that this deletion could have both positive and negative impacts. A positive effect will emerge if the legislator elaborates further on the requirements for constitutional judges and strengthens the arrangement of the Constitutional Court Ethics Council, whose performance supervises constitutional judges.
“In contrast, the elimination of periodization of positions can have a negative impact. This is if there is no further elaboration regarding the terms and conditions for constitutional judges and the Ethics Council for Constitutional Justices is in suspended animation or even abolished,” said the former constitutional judge.
Radian, the second source, quoted Willem Heringa that the heart of judicial power is trust and confidence. This can only be maintained if there is accountability in the judicial branch. Such accountability can be achieved and strengthened through reforms in the filling of judge positions.
“Filling the term of office for judges should regulate basic principles in the recruitment process such as nomination, track record, capacity testing, and proof of being a statesman,” said the Universiteit Utrecht alumnus.
Radian said that constitutional judges are proposed by three different institutions, namely the Supreme Court, the DPR, and the President. Therefore, differences in standards and mechanisms between proposing state institutions in the recruitment process for prospective constitutional judges have a risk of having difficulty producing judges with integrity.
“Responding to this landscape, the supervision and accountability of constitutional judges should be strengthened. One example is reconsidering the role of the Judicial Commission in the oversight function,” concluded Radian.
