Independence Institute Of Justice And Judge In Perspective Judicial Reform Blueprint 2010 - 2035

Abstract

Independency interpreted as a judge must not be controlled, influenced mainly by litigants. Influence and intervention are political and economic, the judge is not bound by any party. Independent judges do not carry the interests of certain parties. The legal basis is guaranteed Article 24 Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, Article 1, Article 2 paragraph (1), Articles 6, 7, 8 and 9, Article 2 paragraph (3), Article 13 paragraph (1), Article 11 paragraph (1), and Article 4 paragraph (1) of Law Number 48 of 2009 and Article 81 A of Law Number 3 of 2009. Independence of judges in the interests of formal law and material law. Judges impartiality is seen in the idea that judges base Reviews their decisions on law and facts at trial. Accountability and transparency serve as a counterweight to the independence of judges. The forms of responsibility of judges in the accountability mechanism: social accountability, public service, provide justice for justice seekers. Integrity and transparency, has made publication of court decisions and public access Easier to find out and discuss court decisions that have permanent legal force through a directory of decisions on the websites of each judicial body, so that they can Become objects of legal study. The foundation of Indonesian legal philosophy is Pancasila as the noble values of the Indonesian nation and basic norms, the source of all sources of law in Indonesia. Pancasila especially this first Precept is what animates the principle of independence of judges in Indonesia. The relationship between the principle of independence of judges with the principles of Pancasila as its philosophical foundation. The principle of independence of judges based on the study of Pancasila philosophy can be seen from the relationship between Law No. 48/2009 with the essence of the Pancasila precepts as follows: Consequences: internal supervision through the Supreme Court supervisory body, and external supervision through KY, BPK and BPKP on the performance of judicial bodies concerning the course of the judiciary, Including the behavior of its Officials, so that the independence of the judiciary is not Misused. Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 highly upholds the first precepts of Pancasila: and external supervision through KY, BPK and BPKP on the performance of judicial bodies concerning the course of the judiciary, Including the behavior of its Officials, so that the independence of the judiciary is not Misused. Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 highly upholds the first precepts of Pancasila: and external supervision through KY, BPK and BPKP on the performance of judicial bodies concerning the course of the judiciary, Including the behavior of its Officials, so that the independence of the judiciary is not Misused. Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009 highly upholds the first precepts of Pancasila: Justice for Justice Based on the Almighty God, the which when linked to Article 1 of Law No. 48 of 2009 further Strengthens the principle of independence of judges. Articles 6,7,8 and 9 of Law No. 48/2009 Appear to have second precepts, Essentially no one can be subject to legal action without a reason in the law. Reviews These provisions imply that independence is not Synonymous with freedom that leads to arbitrariness. Article 2 paragraph (3) of Law No. 48 of 2009, all courts in the entire territory of the Republic of Indonesia are state courts and are determined by law. Article 13 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48/2009 stipulates that the judiciary is open to the public. People are included in the judicial process even as Spectators, IF NECESSARY the people must Participate in upholding justice. Fair means giving what is rightfully his. Article 4 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009, courts try According to the law without Discriminating against people. This means, that all people have the same rights and obligations before the law. Vision of the judiciary: The realization of the Indonesian Supreme Judiciary, referring to the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution, especially the second and fourth paragraphs as the goals of the Republic of Indonesia. In the perspective of this blueprint, the vision of a judicial body is Efforts to improve the realization of a great Indonesian judicial body that can ideally be Tirrenus as a judicial body carrying out the functions of the judicial power Independently, Effectively and fairly. The mission of the judiciary is Formulated in an effort to Achieve its vision, Realize effective judicial power, Disputes resolves in order to uphold law and justice based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, based on grandeur, nobility and glory of institutions. Among the missions of the 2010-2035 judicial body, maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The main requirements for the implementation of objective judicial processes are the independence of the judiciary, as an institutional independence, as well as the independence of judges in Article 24 of the 1945 Constitution and its Amendments, and Principle 1 in the Bangalore Principles of the Judicial Conduct 2002. Independence as a keyword is the implementation of the main duties and functions of the judiciary Effectively. Point 1 Basic Principles of Independence of the United Nations Judicial Power in General Assembly Resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985, that judicial power must be guaranteed by the state and stipulated in a country’s constitution. The obligation of all government institutions and other institutions to respect and maintain the independence of the judicial power. As a consequence of one roof siatem under the Supreme Court, the judiciary has gained authority over the organizational, administrative and financial matters in accordance with Article 21 paragraph (1) of Law No. 48 of 2009, which was previously regulated in Article 11 paragraph (1) of the Law No. 35 of 1999, the functions of planning, implementation and oversight of the organization, administration and finances of all judicial bodies in Indonesia must be Carried out properly. Intended so as not to interfere with the task of judicial power that it carries. The independence of the judiciary contains aspects of the independence of judges to decide (functional independence), closely related to the objectives of the administration of the court, to Ensure the recognition, guarantee, protection and fair legal certainty of every human being in accordance with D Article 28 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and its Amendments. It is Necessary to build an equal understanding and ability among judges regarding developing legal issues. Chief Justice McLachlin Noted that there are three conditions to guarantee the independence of the judiciary in Deciding cases: Security guarantees, during good behavior, during good behavior, until the age of 75, and can only be dismissed by the Governor General for Parliamentary resolutions. In the United States, justices and subordinate judges serve during good behavior, but are entitled to request retirement when they reach the age of 70. In Germany, judges are appointed for life, but the law can regulate retirement age. Financial security (financial security), intended so that judges and judicial power are protected from the possibility of manipulation by the legislative and executive bodies. Guaranteed administrative independence in a functional sense. The daily work of the administration is under the control of the court. Regarding infrastructure, it is under the legislative body (budget) and infrastructure is under the executive. Indonesia since 2004 has been more lax. Facilities, infrastructure, and all administrative functions, Including the procurement of prospective judges are Carried out by the court itself, at the highest level by the Supreme Court, the budget of the which is regulated by the State Budget. Remain control of the legislative and executive bodies. But budget management is entirely run by the court. The important thing that must be Fought for is the independence of performance-based budget management and the provision of supporting facilities in the form of a definite allocation from the state budget. This certainty needs to provide guarantees for the administration of courts throughout Indonesia. Financial Judicial independence has been regulated in Article 81 A of Law Number 3 Year 2009 budget that the Supreme Court is charged to a separate budget item in the state budget (APBN). The most important starting points for budget independence are at two stages play items, namely the planning process and the use process. Aspirations from the planning side are very important for the Supreme Court to Obtain guarantees of the amount of the budget as is the case in the education budget, roomates in the law is set at 20%. So if the state budget is around 1500 trillion budget, then the judiciary should receive 15 trillion in 2014, and the 2000 state budget if the budget is in 2016, the judiciary should receive a budget of Rp 20 trillion or only around 1%. The request is quite realistic considering the MA budget needs are always increasing every year. Although the law states that MA independent institutions include the budget, the current practice of the proposed budget planning by the Supreme Court still has to go through a tough process of discussion between Bappenas and the Ministry of Finance, and ironically Often the results Often do not According to plans get funding.