Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Penelitian ini didasarkan pada wewenang Komisi Yudisial untuk mengusulkan pengangkatan hakim agung. Penulis ingin melihat hubungan Komisi Yudisial dengan Mahkamah Agung dalam rekrutmen hakim agung. Penelitian ini membahas dua permasalahan. Pertama, kedudukan dan peran Komisi Yudisial dalam sistem ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Kedua, hubungan Komisi Yudisial dengan Mahkamah Agung dalam rekrutmen hakim agung. Metode yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Komisi Yudisial adalah state auxiliary organ (lembaga negara bantu) yang menunjang Mahkamah Agung. Hubungan Komisi Yudisial dengan Mahkamah Agung dalam rekrutmen hakim agung tidak berjalan dengan baik karena permasalahan hukum berupa ketidakjelasan pengaturan dan ketiadaan pengaturan mengenai beberapa hal krusial dalam rekrutmen hakim agung. ......The thesis is based on the Judicial Commission?s authority to propose the appointment of supreme court justices. Author would like to see the relationship between Judicial Commision and Supreme Court in the recruitment of the Supreme Court justices. This research focus on two main problems. First, the position and role of the Judicial Commission in the state system of Indonesia. Secondly, relationship between Judicial Commision and Supreme Court in the recruitment of the Supreme Court justices. Method used in this research is juridical-normative. The result of this research shows that the Judicial Commission is an state auxiliary organ to support the Supreme Court. Relationship between Judicial Commision and Supreme Court in the recruitment of the Supreme Court justices does not work well in reality because of legal problems of vagueness and lack of regulation some crucial matters in the justices recruitment.

Abstrak :
Rekrutmen Hakim merupakan basis independensi kekuasaan kehakiman. Penelitian ini bermaksud menjawab permasalahan terkait konstruksi rekrutmen hakim di Indonesia, bagaimana implementasi setelah rekrutmen menjadi kewenangan satu atap, dan bagaimanakah rekrutmen hakim ideal untuk ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Penelitian ini dilaksanakan dengan metode yuridis normatif melalui studi literatur, dengan perbandingan Negara Belanda, Perancis, Italia, Jepang dan India. Hasil Penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Konstruksi rekrutmen hakim Indonesia dibangun dari pergeseran rekrutmen oleh kementerian kehakiman menjadi model rekrutmen oleh Mahkamah Agung dengan sistem satu atap. Selanjutnya pasca amandemen rekrutmen hakim dijalankan dengan model Komisi Yudisial. Implementasi rekrutmen hakim di Indonesia masih belum sejalan dengan konsepsi Judicial Self governance, dimana rekrutmen masih belum terstandarisasi baik dari sisi pelaku, metode dan persyaratan. Rekrutmen hakim agung menggunakan metode appointment by judicial commission meskipun kewenangan DPR telah dianulir MK, namun metode cooperative appointment masih terus dijalankan dengan metode double fit and proper test. Rekrutmen hakim tingkat pertama dilaksanakan dengan metode recruitment by political institution dengan sub model Ministry, meskipun pasca putusan MK diperintahkan untuk dilakukan secara judicial self appointment namun nyatanya MA menyerahkan proses kepada Menpan-BKN yang notabene eksekutif. Sedangkan untuk hakim adhoc dan hakim pajak, potensial dengan intervensi eksekutif dalam pelaksanaan rekrutmennya. Sebagai bentuk ideal yang ditawarkan adalah rekrutmen hakim dengan metode appointed by judicial commission dengan model single body appointment, idealitas model rekrutmen terletak pada asas-asas rekruitmen yang transparan, akuntabel, partisipatif dan obyektif dengan sinergi antara Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial.  Saran penelitian, pengaturan rekrutmen hakim perlu diatur dalam konstitusi kita, standarisasi tersebut termasuk dalam konsistensi personal judicial self-governance dengan berpegang pada Independensi dan efektifitas administrasi peradilan.    ......The selection of Judges is the basis of judicial independence. This research was designed to exercise, the construction of judge appointment process in Indonesia, How the recruitment of judge was implemented under the one roof system and answering the ideal model of judge appointment in Indonesia. This was normative juridic research, conducted by literature study, and comparative study to Netherland, France, Italy, Japan, and India. The conclusions show that the construction of Judicial Appointment in Indonesia was shifted from Ministry of Justice to Judicial self-Appointment by the one roof system enactment.  The construction shifting continuous to “appointment by Judicial council/commission model” after the amendment. The implementation of the judge appointment process was not suitable to the principles of Judicial Self-governance, since the subject, method and requirement were not standardized. The judge appointment was Implemented as follow, Supreme court judge appointment was using the “appointment by judicial commission model” even though Legislative involvement were annulled by the supreme court, but the cooperative appointment is still being practiced with the double fit and proper test method. The Implementation of first instance judge appointment was conducted ala recruitment by political institution, in sub-Ministry model, this model was against the constitutional court decision since it should be held by “judicial self-appointment” since judicial commission involvement was unconstitutional, but supreme court was given the authority to state apparatus ministry and state civil servant Body (Menpan-BKN) instead. While the appointment of ad hoc judges and tax judges were potentially open the interference by the executive.  The study proposed the appointment by judicial commission with the single body appointment model as the ideal model. The ideal appointment method needs to rely on the core principles of appointment which are transparent, accountable, participative, and objective, this also need Supreme Court dan Judicial Commission synergy. The study suggests that our constitution needs to arrange the Judge appointment mechanism, this also includes the personal judicial self-governance based on independence and effectiveness of the judiciary.