Observer slams new Supreme Court justices criteria<\/p>\n
Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<\/p>\n
The new requirement criteria for Supreme Court judges, which
\nlimits chances for non-career judges, is a setback to the
\ncountry's ongoing attempts to develop a clean judiciary, an
\nobserver says.<\/p>\n
Asep Rahmat Fajar of the Coalition of Judiciary Observers
\n(KPP) said on Saturday that few non-judges would be eligible to
\nsit on the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
\"It's a very difficult requirement. The House's decision shows
\nthat they only seek experienced judges, and not those with high
\npersonal integrity,\" Asep told The Jakarta Post on Saturday.<\/p>\n
Legislators deliberating the Supreme Court bill have agreed
\nthat lawyers or law lecturers aspiring to become Supreme Court
\njudges must have worked for 25 consecutive years in that
\nprofession and possess a master's degree in law studies.<\/p>\n
Legislator Sjaiful Rachman of the House's Commission II on
\nlegal and home affairs said on Saturday that lawmakers had
\nalready deliberated articles on the requirements in the Supreme
\nCourt bill.<\/p>\n
Since 2000, legislators have opened the door for non-judges to
\nbecome Supreme Court judges in a bid to develop a more
\nindependent and clean judiciary.<\/p>\n
It is common knowledge that many judges are part of the
\njudiciary mafia, which has created a corrupt judiciary in the
\ncountry.<\/p>\n
Lawyers or law lecturers with at least 15 years experience
\nwere allowed to apply to sit on the Supreme Court. In 2003,
\nhowever, legislators required non-career Supreme Court judge
\ncandidates to have law diploma, have worked for 15 consecutive
\nyears in the legal field, and have specific expertise in selected
\nareas.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, legislators have eased requirements for career
\njudges to become Supreme Court judges. From 2001 through 2003,
\nthe House insisted on using law No. 14\/1985, which stipulates
\nthat career judges wishing to become Supreme Court judges must
\nhave worked as judges for 15 years and have led a high court for
\nfive years.<\/p>\n
In the Supreme Court bill currently deliberated by the House,
\nhowever, legislators have lowered the requirements to 17 years as
\njudges in any court and three years in a high court, either as
\nthe chief or a member.<\/p>\n
Asep said the House must focus on the recruitment process to
\nnet aspirants with high integrity, the most important thing to
\nclean up the courts.<\/p>\n
\"The House's purpose of welcoming non-judges into the court
\nwas to gain public trust. Therefore, they must realize that
\ncareer judges have an unfavorable reputation among the people. Do
\nnot base the requirements on the length of working experience of
\nthe aspirants,\" he said.<\/p>\n
Sjaiful, however, insisted the new requirements would net more
\ncapable judges.<\/p>\n
\"We need qualified judges,\" he said, without elaborating.<\/p>\n
Earlier, observers lashed out at the House for failing to set
\naside their political interests in the selection of Supreme Court
\njudges.<\/p>\n
The third amendment of the 1945 Constitution in 2001 calls for
\nthe establishment of a Judicial Commission to handle the
\nrecruitment of Supreme Court judges and Constitutional Court
\njudges. However, the House has yet to finish deliberating the
\nbill on Judicial Commission.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/observer-slams-new-supreme-court-justices-criteria-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}