Repositioning the Judicial Commission in Judicial Oversight Reform: Institutional Synergy and Human Resource Development Strategy
Downloads
How to Cite
This study examines the repositioning of the Judicial Commission (Komisi Yudisial – KY) within the broader framework of judicial reform in Indonesia. Although the KY is constitutionally mandated under Article 24B of the 1945 Constitution to safeguard the honor, dignity, and conduct of judges, its implementation has faced structural tensions, especially with the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung – MA). Employing a normative juridical analysis, this research integrates statutory review, comparative international practices, and triangulation of academic sources and official reports. The findings reveal that while KY received 3,593 public complaints in 2023, the judicial integrity index improved only slightly (from 7.84 in 2022 to 7.99 in 2023), indicating persistent integrity challenges. Comparative analysis highlights that effective oversight models in Canada, England, and the Philippines combine ethical monitoring with human resource management, transparency, and public participation. In contrast, Indonesia’s model remains fragmented and often perceived as punitive rather than developmental. The study argues that KY must be repositioned along three strategic lines: (1) adopting risk-based ethical oversight to detect potential violations early; (2) integrating oversight with judicial career management, ensuring that ethical records influence promotions and transfers; and (3) fostering collaborative ethical development with MA, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), and universities. Institutional implications include revising regulations to clarify KY’s authority, establishing a National Judicial Ethics Council (DEHN) as a collegial forum, and developing transparent digital reporting systems. Ultimately, repositioning KY will transform it into an agent of judicial reform: an ethical culture changer within the judiciary, an internal counterbalance to MA’s authority, and a catalyst for public trust through transparency and accountability. This transformation is essential to strengthen judicial integrity, enhance professionalism, and restore public confidence in Indonesia’s judicial institutions.
Alahbabi, H. (2024). Judicial accountability and transparency in the UK: Mechanisms and challenges. International Journal of Law and Society, 7(1), 45–62.
Aschauer, C., & Quick, R. (2024). Judicial ethics, accountability, and public trust: A comparative perspective. Journal of Legal Studies, 33(2), 101–118.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2010). Konstitusi dan konstitusionalisme Indonesia. Jakarta: Konstitusi Press.
Aziz, M., Purba, N., Yeltriana, Y., Batubara, I., Monica, E., & Kiswanto, D. (2023). Politik reformasi kewenangan Komisi Yudisial sebagai penguatan pengawasan terhadap Mahkamah Agung. Jurnal Ius Constituendum, 8(3), 395–405. https://doi.org/10.26623/jic.v8i3.6128
Becker, G. S. (n.d.). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis. SCIRP.
Butt, S., & Lindsey, T. (2012). Judicial mafia: The Indonesian Supreme Court. Sydney Law Review.
Cahyani, E., Abyan, A., & Wulandari, N. (2024). Kolaborasi Komisi Yudisial dan Mahkamah Agung: Upaya memperkuat keadilan di Indonesia. SLR, 6(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.20884/1.slr.2024.6.2.16062
Canadian Judicial Council. (2023–2024). Reports and review of complaints procedures. Ottawa: CJC.
Constantino, A., & Wagner, P. (2024). Judicial performance evaluation and professional development in Canada. Canadian Journal of Judicial Administration, 41(1), 77–95.
Farda, N., & Putra, Y. (2024). Pelaksanaan fungsi pengawasan terhadap perilaku hakim oleh Komisi Yudisial. Menara Ilmu, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.31869/mi.v18i2.5276
Geyh, G. C. (2019). Judicial ethics: A new paradigm for a new era. Indiana Law Repository.
Hukumonline. (2023). Liputan ringkasan Laporan Tahunan KY 2023 (angka 3.593 laporan). Hukumonline.com. https://www.hukumonline.com
Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. (2023–2024). Annual report. Judicial Conduct Complaints.
Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia. (2022). Laporan Tahunan Komisi Yudisial RI 2021. Jakarta: KY-RI.
Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia. (2023a). Laporan Tahunan Komisi Yudisial Tahun 2023. Jakarta: KY-RI.
Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia. (2023b). Siaran pers “Januari–September 2023, Komisi Yudisial terima 1.592 laporan.” Jakarta: KY-RI.
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2022). Laporan Tahunan Mahkamah Agung 2021: Kinerja dan akuntabilitas. Jakarta: MA-RI.
Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia. (2023). Laporan Tahunan 2023 (Kepaniteraan/MA). https://kepaniteraan.mahkamahagung.go.id
Ndururu, T., Santos, J., & Villanueva, R. (2023). Public participation and judicial integrity: Lessons from the Philippines. Asian Journal of Law and Society, 10(3), 311–329.
Pompe, S. (2005). The Indonesian Supreme Court: A study of institutional collapse. Ithaca: Cornell Southeast Asia Program Publications.
Roller, M., Jennings, P., & Ortega, L. (2023). Judicial conduct and oversight: Comparative models in common law systems. International Review of Law, 12(4), 201–224.
Sakti, L., Susanto, E., & Rahman, A. (2024). Pengawasan hakim oleh Komisi Yudisial pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi atas Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial. JISHUM, 2(2), 227–244. https://doi.org/10.57248/jishum.v2i2.346
Santoso, T. (2016). Reformasi peradilan dan masa depan Komisi Yudisial. Jurnal Hukum IUS, 4(2), 150–167.
Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2011 tentang Perubahan atas Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial.
Undang-Undang Nomor 22 Tahun 2004 tentang Komisi Yudisial.
Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman.
Wahyudi Djafar, W. (2018). Tantangan reformasi kelembagaan Komisi Yudisial. Jurnal Konstitusi, 15(4), 901–920.
World Bank. (n.d.). Global program on justice and rule of law / JUPITER (reformasi peradilan dan penguatan SDM).
Copyright (c) 2025 Bayu Setiawan, Hilda Wahyuni
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
