The Hanns Seidel Foundation in Jakarta has supported its partner organisation, the Indonesian Lecturer Association of Constitutional Court Procedural Law (Asosiasi Pengajar Hukum Acara Mahkamah Konstitusi - APHAMK), to hold a international symposium together with the Judicial Commission and the Dr. Sutomo University in Surabaya, East Java from June 29th-30th 2012.

In the face of the challenges that the Indonesian legal system has been facing, especially unethical behavior among a growing number of judges in this country, in 2004 the government formed an independent agency running the authority of proposing the appointment of Supreme Court Judges and other authorities in the framework of maintaining and upholding the judicial code of conduct, honor and dignity – the Judicial Commission. In other words, an institution that guards and supervises the ethical conduct of Indonesian judges.

Against this background, this event featured representatives from the Indonesian Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Commission and aimed to define and give out recommendations on how to improve the implementation of the Judicial Commission’s competencies in order to be an independent, ethical, impartial and trustworthy institution.

In his opening speech, HSF Indonesia’s director, Dr. Ulrich Klingshirn, has explained that Germany does not have an institution like the Judicial Commission as the judges there are already sworn to comply with special laws on the code of conduct for German judges. To conclude his speech, Dr. Klingshirn was highlighting HSF Indonesia’s scope of work in the legal sector, which includes partnerships such as the Indonesian Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, APHAMK or the Centre of Excellence for Public Policy and Good Governance (CPG).

The international part of this symposium featured a speaker from the Judicial Commission, Dr. Ibrahim, SH, MH, LLM, the Head of APHAMK, Dr. Widodo Eka Tjahjana, SH, MH, and a representative from CPG Bangkok, Dr. Duc Quang Ly. These legal experts discussed the topic “Judicial Power and its Challenges in Comparative Perspectives”, where Dr. Ibrahim stated that a clean and ethical legal system requires independence and objectivity. As a comparative perspective, Dr. Widodo was referring to “Judicial Power, Implementation and its Challenge to enforce Law and Justice from Indonesian Perspective”, while Dr. Ly shared insights in the Taiwanese Constitutional Court and its impacts on democratization in that country.

The two-day event, which was divided into four parts, continued with an evaluation of the regulations and working mechanisms of the Indonesian legal system (i.e. the interaction between the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Commission). In this regard, Professor Dr. Gayus Lumbuun, who is a Supreme Justice and also a Member of Parliament, was explaining the structure of the Indonesian Supreme Court, which consists of five chambers: Civil Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Law, Military Law and Religious Law. In regard to the relation between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission, Professor Lumbuun held the opinion that the Judicial Commission is playing a crucial role as an external supervisor towards the Supreme Court, helping it to be a clean and impartial institution.

A further high-profile speaker at this event was the Constitutional Judge Mr. Akil Mochtar, who portrayed the working mechanism and scope of work of the Indonesian Constitutional Court, the implementation of the administration system of this institution as well as its relations toward the Supreme Court and Judicial Commission. The Constitutional Court in Indonesia has five tasks, whereas until now only three of them have been implemented:

• Judicial Review
• Dispute of state organs
• Regional Electoral Review

The two tasks that the Constitutional Court never had to carry out until today are the impeachment of the Indonesian President and the party ban of political parties.

The symposium, which was attended by around 100 participants from various backgrounds such as the law faculties of universities, constitutional experts and legal firms, was closed with an open discussion round and a Q&A session with the keynote speakers. The participants came to the conclusion that the realization of a clean and ethical legal system requires a regulatory system that has a clear division of responsibilities among the various institutions and that the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Judicial Commission should use their synergies and respective expertise to that end.