• PENDIDIKAN KHUSUS PROFESI ADVOKAT (PKPA) ANGKATAN II 2012
• FH UGM Berupaya Tingkatkan Kontribusi Pada Bangsa
• Kisah Sukses Tiga Mahasiswi Fakultas Hukum Dengan Nilai Sempurna
• Tiga Dosen Fakultas Hukum UGM mengajar di Charles Darwin University, Australia
• UGM Beri Penghargaan Insan Berprestasi
• Ujian Terbuka Bapak Sulastriyono, S.H., M.Si.
• Tim Peradilan Semu Mahkamah Konstitusi FH UGM Raih Juara 2 Nasional
• PENDIDIKAN KHUSUS PROFESI ADVOKAT
• BERITA LELAYU
• Short Course in International Trade III: Legal Aspects; Pemahaman Komprehensif Tentang Kekayaan Intelektual: Teori dan Praktek

Tue, Apr 21st 2009, 08:06

The judge’s decision to make a decision which contains elements of justice, benefit, and legal absolute is a judge’s problem in a court or in a Supreme Court Institution nowadays. It is the fact that it is rare to find the judge’s decisions which contain the three elements, because there is intervene from the other parties towards the autonomous judge in handling a case, both money power or political  power.

The passage above was explained by the Chairman of Supreme Court (SC), Dr. Harifin A. Tumpa, S.H., M.H., in a seminar entitled (“Refleksi Fakultas Hukum UGM terhadap Kondisi Hukum Indonesia”) Reflection of Faculty of Law UGM in Dealing With Indonesian Legal Condition” at Room I Faculty of Law UGM, Monday (16/2). According to Tumpa, judge’s authority cannot be interfered from any parties and it is already regulated and guaranteed by the rules, but in fact, it is often to find the intervention from parties who have interest in it.  

”Therefore, the judge should be just so that the three elements can be fulfilled to avoid as if s/he is a legislator” the new chairman of Supreme Court stated.  

Harifin Tumpa explained that under his management SC will take some steps to solve the problem. One of them is strengthening the position of the judges by training them to improve the quality of the judge’s knowledge in order to improve the judge’s integrity so that s/he will not be easy to be influenced on his/her cases by other parties. Besides that it will improve the control to the judges to be preventive and repressive.                

“By minimizing the contact between the judges and the parties who have court cases and by forbidding the authorities and politicians to persuade the judges are the efforts that should be taken to keep the judge’s autonomy.” He explained.

This South Celebes man also stated that there was still an intervention towards the autonomy of Supreme Court’s judges as the highest judges who should be able to unify the legal views in SC institution which was in fact there was no united view among the Supreme Court’s judges towards a case.  

He took an example in corruption cases and narcotic cases which were decided by minimum law. But there were some judges who still stated that the minimum decision was fair for the moral justice. “The opposite parties were asking the basic principle whether it was the judge’s justice or society’s justice.” He said.      

The seminar which was one of the series of the event in celebrating the 63^rd “Dies Natalis” Faculty of Law UGM presented speakers such as Chairman of Constitutional Court Prof. Dr. Mahfud MD., professor of Faculty of Law UGM Prof. Dr. Sudjito, S.H., M.Si., and Indonesian President special legal staff  Denny Indrayana, S.H., LL.M., Ph.D.   

On this occasion Prof. Dr. Sudjito, S.H., M.Si. said that to totally reform the legal system in Indonesia, it should be conducted a study on the domestic values, because the Indonesian legal system was still dominated by individual values, liberal values, capital values, and political values

 “First of all, Indonesia must have a strong legal system as the foundation. Subsequently the legal change in Indonesia should be controlled based on the legal foundation in order to suit with the state’s dreams,” He said  

Meanwhile the Chairman of Constitutional Court Prof. Dr. Mahfud MD., S.H., S.U., described the cases which had been successfully done by the Constitutional Court in the last 5 years. During the time, the Constitutional Court had handled at least 178 cases on regulations examination with 161 cases were accomplished and 17 cases are in progress. Besides that, the Constitutional Court had accomplished 11 cases on state institution competence dispute.  

In this occasion Denny Indrayana, H.H., LL.M., Ph.D., who is also a lecturer of constitutional law in Faculty of Law UGM explained the challenges in recent Indonesian court. According to him, Indonesia is a state which has the most comprehensive law to protect human rights, but there are problems on the constitutional protection of press freedom and criminalization on press.     

“Related to the press freedom, nowadays the freedom of speak and the freedom of expression have been guaranteed by press’s regulation and institutions such as Press Council and Indonesian Press Commission. But in fact, there is still criminalization towards press, and there is no an absolute constitutional protection towards the press freedom.” He said. (PR of UGM/Ika)