Wajah "Kode Etik Hakim" Indonesia
Penandatangan SKB Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim
JAKARTA- MA.. Hari rabu, 08 April 2009 pukul 10.00 WIB Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial menandatangani surat keputusan bersama tentang Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim. Bertempat di ruang Mudjono, Gedung Mahkamah Agung RI, Penandatanganan antara Ketua Mahkamah Agung, Harifin A Tumpa dan Ketua Komisi Yudisial Busro Muqodas berlangsung lancar.
Sesuai dengan Surat Keputusan Bersama Ketua Mahkamah Agung dan Ketua Komisi Yudisial, Nomor : 047/KMA/SK/IV/2009/2.02/SKB/P.KY/IV/2009 tentang Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim, maka kerjasama dalam hal pengawasan hakim kini dilakukan oleh dua lembaga tinggi negara.
Dalam sambutannya, Ketua Komisi Yudisial Busro Mukodas menyatakan Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim, kedepannya Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial akan melakukan upaya dan langkah-langkah untuk meningkatkan, menjaga kehormatan, martabat serta perilaku hakim.
Sementara dalam sambutannya, Ketua Mahkamah Agung Arifin A Tumpa menyatakan bahwa Kode Etik adalah merupakan salah satu unsur penting untuk menjaga kehormatan dan keluhuran martabat seorang Hakim agar mampu mnjalankan profesinya dengan professional.
Mahkamah Agung dengan Komisi Yudisial maupun komponen masyarakat mempunyai keinginan dan tujuan yang sama dengan peradilan yang kredibel, akuntabel dan moderen. Untuk mewujudkan cita-cita ini tentunya bagi aparat peradilan terutama para hakim agar dapat memberikan pelayanan kepada public dengan baik dan memberikan putusan-putusan yang berkualitas yang mencerminkan berdasarkan keadilan.
Di tulis pada Senin, 13 April 2009 08:28:07 oleh naz http://pt-bandung.go.id/news/penandatangan-skb-kode-etik-dan-pedoman-perilaku-hakim
| Batasan Perilaku Hakim Tak Terkontrol |
| Wednesday, 15 February 2012 | |
| JAKARTA – Batasan perilaku hakim dinilai semakin longgar setelah Mahkamah Agung (MA) mencabut delapan butir kode etik hakim dalam sidang uji materiil Surat Keputusan Bersama (SKB) Ketua MA dan Ketua KY pada 2009 tentang kode etik dan pedoman perilaku hakim. Berbagai pihak khawatir pencabutan delapan poin etik ini membuat perilaku hakim semakin tak terkontrol. Poin yang dicabut MA antara lain poin 10.4 mengenai larangan hakim mengabaikan fakta pengadilan.Padahal,butir etik itulah yang dipersoalkan Komisi Yudisial (KY) sebagai pasal etik yang dilanggar majelis hakim Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan (PN Jaksel) saat menyidangkan mantan Ketua KPK Antasari Azhar dalam kasus pembunuhan berencana terhadap Nazaruddin Zulkarnaen.“ Menyatakan butir 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, serta butir 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, dan 10.4 Keputusan Bersama Ketua MA dan Ketua KY 8 April 2009 tentang Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim tidak sah dan tidak berlaku,” ujar ketua majelis hakim pengujian SKB Paulus Effendi Lotulung dalam putusan yang dikutip dari laman MA. Majelis hakim yang terdiri atas Ahmad Sukardja, Rehngena Purba,Takdir Rahmadi, dan Supandi itu juga memerintahkan kepada Ketua MA dan Ketua KY untuk mencabut delapan butir SKB Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim. Dengan demikian,untuk selanjutnya para hakim tidak lagi berkewajiban menaati kode etik tersebut. Uji materi itu diajukan oleh beberapa advokat, antara lain Humala Simanjuntak,Lintong Siahaan,dan Sarmanto Tambunan. Mereka menguji poin kedelapan tentang disiplin tinggi dan poin kesepuluh tentang sikap profesional dalam SKB Kode Etik Hakim dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim.Mereka menilai dua poin itu dapat menyebabkan hakim ketakutan dan independensinya dapatterganggu dalam menangani perkara. Kode etik dan pedoman perilaku hakim adalah sekumpulan poin etik yang dirumuskan untuk mewujudkan prinsip pengadilan yang mandiri,netral, kompeten, transparan, akuntabel, dan berwibawa. Isinya 10 prinsip,yaitu berperilaku adil,berperilaku jujur, berperilakuarifdanbijaksana, bersikap mandiri, berintegritas tinggi, bertanggung jawab, menjunjungtinggihargadiri, berdisiplin tinggi,berperilaku rendah hati, dan bersikap profesional. Sementara itu KY mengaku kecewa atas pencabutan delapan poin etik perilaku hakim. Apalagi prinsip-prinsip kode etik hakim itu yang menjadi pedoman KY dalam menilai perilaku hakim. KY menyebut prosedur pemeriksaan uji materi pencabutan delapan poin etik perilaku hakim di MA tidak transparan.Sebab sebagai termohon, KY tidak pernah diberi informasi atau dipanggil untuk memberi pendapat. “KY hanya dapat informasi saat ada pengajuan permohonan ini September 2011 lalu dan saat putusan keluar,” ujar Juru Bicara KY Asep Rahmat. Lembaga pengawas hakim ini akan melakukan kajian ada tidaknya potensi konflik kepentingan dan tindakan lainnya sebagaimana diatur atau dilarang dalam SKB Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim dalam kasus ini. Sebenarnya majelis hakim tidak berwenang mengadili uji meteri ini karena ada konflik kepentingan, yaitu mengadili perkarayangterkaitdirinya sendiri sebagaimana tertuang dalam jawaban permohonan uji materi. Pakar hukum pidana Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII) Yogyakarta Muzakir mengatakan, pencabutan kode etik tersebut bisa membuka peluang seorang hakim untuk menyalah guna kan wewenang yang diembannya. Kode etik menurutnya merupakan moral yang mendasari penggunaan wewenang yang terkait dengan pelaksanaan hukum. mnlatief |
An Independent (but Immoral?) Top Court
Indonesia’s Supreme Court and Judicial Commission co-hosted a regional workshop on judicial integrity in late January, attended by senior judges from Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. One issue discussed was the extent to which participating countries had adopted the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct (2002), which outline widely accepted international standards of judicial independence, integrity and competence.
At the event, Indonesian Supreme Court Chief Justice Harifin A. Tumpa announced that judicial ethics codes in Asian countries should be brought into line with the Bangalore Principles. He also said the Indonesian Judicial Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judicial Behavior (the “Code”) has adopted these principles. The Supreme Court itself prepared the Code in conjunction with the Judicial Commission, and Harifin endorsed it in April 2009.
But just two weeks before the workshop, a panel of five judges from Harifin’s own Supreme Court had actually decided to invalidate eight key sections of the Code, a decision announced on Feb. 9. Many of the invalidated sections appear to have been drawn from the Bangalore Principles, which prohibit judges from making mistakes in their decisions, disregarding facts that could disadvantage a party, otherwise favoring a party and handling cases in which they have an interest.
The principles also require judges to maintain and enhance their knowledge, skills and personal qualities; to respect the rights of parties; to understand and perform their tasks in accordance with the law so as to apply the law correctly; and to meet their administrative responsibilities.
The court’s reasoning in this case was as follows: Indonesia’s Basic Judiciary Law, enacted in October 2009, requires the Judicial Commission to supervise the conduct of judges, but it also prohibits the commission from interfering in judges’ independence when they hear and decide cases. The Supreme Court has long maintained that the commission does precisely this — interferes — whenever it seeks to question the correctness of judicial decisions (or “technical-judicial matters,” as the court often puts it).
It contends that if a judge knows that his or her decision will be scrutinized by an outsider, he or she might hand down a decision to appease the outsider rather than one based on the evidence, the law and his or her conscience.
Following this logic, the Supreme Court has decided that the eight Code provisions were allowing the commission to move beyond the supervision of mere behavior and to second-guess the “cognitive processes” that lead to judicial decisions. However, it is difficult to see how requiring judges to maintain their skills, to perform their tasks in accordance with the law and to avoid making mistakes or succumbing to bias can possibly affect their decision making.
The Supreme Court itself drafted and endorsed the Code — it is hard to reconcile how the same Basic Law that provided the Code’s statutory basis has also created the grounds for its invalidity.
Observers of Indonesia’s judicial system are familiar with decisions like this. It is part of a sustained campaign by the Supreme Court to maintain control over the judicial misconduct proceedings involving its own judges and the 7,000-odd judges it administers. Many observers speculate that the court’s resistance to external scrutiny stems from its desire to minimize revelations about the high levels of judicial corruption in Indonesia, particularly within the Supreme Court itself.
In this endeavor, the Supreme Court holds a major trump card: the Judicial Commission cannot take independent action against a judge for misconduct, but can only make recommendations to the Supreme Court. The commission investigated almost 400 judges from 2005-10 and recommended that almost 100 of them be sanctioned, but the court moved to discharge only four and many of the recommendations were ignored. The court dismissed most of them as alleged “technical-judicial” breaches, an area in which, according to the court, the commission lacks jurisdiction.
To its great credit, the commission has not been content to stand mute and has continued to complain to the court about legally flawed judicial decisions.
The court has met this perceived recalcitrance with attempts to invalidate the very legal foundations for the commission’s work.
In 2006, members of the court challenged provisions of the 2004 Judicial Commission Law before the Constitutional Court. The latter held that, for reasons of judicial independence, the commission cannot analyze judges’ decisions to assess whether judicial misconduct has occurred.
But the Supreme Court has now moved a step further, not simply prohibiting the commission from monitoring breaches of the eight principles, but actually removing these principles so the court itself cannot use them as bases for disciplinary action.
The commission can now only legally investigate judges’ out-of-court behavior, which does not bode well for efforts to improve judicial standards in Indonesia. The Supreme Court consistently fares poorly in citizen-satisfaction surveys of government institutions and is often criticized for corruption and incompetence.
It now seems even clearer that the court will continue to resist reform until the judicial accountability system is overhauled. Perhaps it is time to recognize that, in countries where judicial standards of integrity and competence are low, judicial accountability should, at least in the short term, trump judicial independence.
East Asia Forum
By: Simon Butt | March 03, 2012
Simon Butt is a lecturer at the University of Sydney’s Center for Asian and Pacific Law http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/an-independent-but-immoral-top-court/502120
