Tempo
Dirty Broom at the Judicial Commission
Monday, September 7, 2026
The Judicial Commission, which should serve as a watchdog, is entangled in the old games of the judiciary. Internal oversight is lacking.
arsip tempo : 178876216627.
ALMOST all institutions established as part of the mandate of the 1998 Reformasi Movement have strayed from their original ideals. The Judicial Commission is no exception. Established in 2004 to reform a corrupt judicial system that operated under the control of the New Order regime, the institution was given, among other powers, the authority to oversee and safeguard judges' conduct.
Two decades later, the Judicial Commission is facing problems from within. The alleged ethical violation by Judicial Commission member Andi Muhammad Asrun in a civil case at the Labuan Bajo District Court in East Nusa Tenggara is one example. In April 2026, Asrun visited the court and allegedly inquired about the progress of the execution of land that was the subject of the case.
Asrun is suspected of violating the code of ethics and conduct guidelines for Judicial Commission members by interfering in the case. Under the institution's ethical and conduct guidelines, Judicial Commission members are prohibited from taking sides or using their official influence for their own interests or those of others. Asrun's action in questioning the land execution openly benefited one of the parties in the dispute at the Labuan Bajo District Court.
Asrun's actions could destroy the integrity and credibility of the judicial watchdog from within the organization. He instead has engaged in practices that further damage the judiciary he is supposed to oversee.
Ethical violations such as those allegedly committed by Asrun could recur because of the Judicial Commission's weak internal oversight system. The institution is mandated to oversee judges' ethics, but mechanisms for monitoring and enforcing ethical standards among its commissioners have not operated transparently and accountably.
Internal ethical guidelines do provide for the establishment of an ad hoc ethics council when there are reports of alleged ethical violations by Judicial Commission members. However, the temporary nature of this internal ethics body makes the oversight system less than optimal and tends to encourage secrecy under the pretext of protecting the institution's dignity and the commissioners' good names.
Co-optation by those in power has left the Judicial Commission increasingly toothless. The leaders and members of the Judicial Commission currently in office were selected by a committee comprising people close to those in power, both in the executive and legislative branches. They were chosen so that those in power could easily co-opt the institution when pursuing certain agendas.
One of the Judicial Commission's duties is to propose Supreme Court justice candidates to the House of Representatives. The backgrounds of commissioners close to those in power will ensure that the appointment of Supreme Court justices proceeds smoothly in accordance with the interests of those in power. This was evident in the 2026 selection of Supreme Court justice candidates, when several incompetent candidates who were allegedly close to House members and political parties were instead allowed to pass.
Reform of the judiciary through safeguarding and improving judges' conduct can be achieved if watchdog institutions such as the Judicial Commission are filled with independent commissioners of integrity. It is like cleaning a floor with a dirty broom, improving judges' conduct is impossible if their watchdogs also behave improperly.
Tempo More Articles
Elite Manipulation in the Asset Forfeiture Setup
Tempo English Monday, September 7, 2026
Why the Asset Forfeiture Bill Stalled Under Jokowi
Tempo English Monday, September 7, 2026
A Blunder by the Judicial Watchdog
Tempo English Monday, September 7, 2026
Odysseus
Tempo English Monday, September 7, 2026
More exclusive contents
September 7, 2026
August 31, 2026
August 24, 2026
August 17, 2026
(0)Comments