JRSSEM 2022, Vol. 01, No. 8, 1176 – 1187
E-ISSN: 2807 - 6311, P-ISSN: 2807 - 6494
DOI : 10.36418/jrssem.v1i8.137 https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem/index
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION
WITH THE IDEAL SUPREME COURT
Markoni*
Esa Unggul University
e-mail: markoni@esaunggul.ac.id
*Correspondence: markoni@esaunggul.ac.id
Submitted: 27 February 2022, Revised: 06 March 2022, Accepted: 15 March 2022
Abstract. Relationship is a matter of the occurrence of cause and effect. The ideal relationship is
something that is aspired or coveted or desired by every individual, group and body or
organization who wants to establish a relationship based on the interests and desires of both
parties, Same is the case with the Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court. In the dynamics of
an organization that differences are a means to give birth to solutions in creating togetherness and
establishing ideal relationships in building a common concept and rules. The research
methodology used in this paper uses the Normative Empirical research method, which aims to
answer what factors influence the relationship between the Judicial Commission and the Supreme
Court, as well as how to improve the ideal relationship between the Judicial Commission and the
Supreme Court.
Keywords: relationship, ideal, judicial commission (KY), supreme court (MA)
Markoni | 1177
DOI : 10.36418/jrssem.v1i8.137 https://jrssem.publikasiindonesia.id/index.php/jrssem/index
INTRODUCTION
An ideal relationship is something that
is aspired or desired or desired by every
individual (Hoesein, 2016); (Deng, 2018),
group and body or organization who wants
to establish a relationship based on
interests and desires both sides. If this
understanding is related to the ideal
relationship between the Judicial
Commission (hereinafter referred to as
KY) and the Supreme Court (hereinafter
referred to as MA), it means that the
relationship between KY and MA must be
in accordance with the wishes aspired by
both parties and also desired by the State
and the DPR as a representation from
society. That the wishes of the Government
and the community have basically been
stated in the laws and regulations that
apply to both parties.
That the relationship between KY and
MA is run by legal professionals. We all
realize that the legal profession is an
honorable and noble profession.
Individuals who carry out an honorable and
noble profession are addressed to Judges.
In carrying out trials, judges are always
called as Your Majesty. The demand for a
noble title is an honorable calling as a legal
professional, thus it is necessary to make
this profession a choice and at the same
time a calling in life to serve the community
in the field of law (Hirschi & Herrmann,
2013); (Beveridge, Moody, Murray,
Darimont, & Pauly, 2020).
The object of KY's supervision is to carry
out external supervision of judges in all
courts (Nurlaelawati & Rahim, 2012);
(Hasmi, 2017). While the object of
supervision of the first Supreme Court is
the internal supervision of the Judicial
Technical field of judges in all courts with
the aim of improving the quality of judges'
decisions (Pekkanen & Niemi, 2013), the
second is supervision in the administrative
field which aims to improve legal services
and finally in the field of judicial functions
in accordance with the Code of Ethics and
Code of Conduct for Judges (Sillen, 2019);
(Rifai, 2010); (Handelman & Greene, 2013).
If we take the same slice of the two
functions of the Institution, there is a
similarity that the objects are judges at all
levels of the judiciary and both maintain
and enforce the code of ethics and code of
conduct for judges.
Judges have a very large task and
responsibility authority in carrying out
judicial power, so that court decisions are
always pronounced with the irah-irah "For
Justice Based on the One Godhead" this
shows the obligation to uphold the law,
truth and justice must be horizontally
accountable to humans, and vertically to
God Almighty.
Supervision is needed to realize a fair
legal decision by the judges. There needs to
be an ideal relationship in internal
supervision by the Supreme Court and
external supervision by the Judicial
Commission. That success in maintaining
and enforcing the Code of Ethics and Code
of Conduct for Judges properly and
correctly can increase public trust.
Therefore, judges are required to behave
well and be virtuous .
KY's service has been running for
decades. As a relatively new and
independent institution, various
challenges, obstacles and different
perceptions in carrying out tasks may
1178 | The Relationship of The Judicial Commission with the Ideal Supreme Court
occur. In the dynamics of an organization
that differences are a means to give birth to
solutions in creating togetherness and
establishing ideal relationships in building
a common concept and rules. As a
manifestation of the joint concept between
KY and MA, several joint regulations have
been made and updated including: Joint
Regulation Number: 01/PB/MA/IX2012,
Number: 01/PB/P.KY/09/2012 concerning
Selection of Appointing Judges,
Regulations Joint Number:
02/PB/MA/IX2012, Number:
02/PB/P.KY/09/2012 concerning Guidelines
for Enforcement of the Code of Ethics and
Code of Conduct for Judges, Joint
Regulation Number 03/PB/MA/IX2012,
03/PB/P KY/09/2012 concerning
Procedures for Joint Examination and Joint
Regulation Number 04/PB/MA/IX2012,
04/PB/P.KY/09/2012 concerning
Procedures for Establishing, Working
Procedures and Decision Making
Procedures for the Honorary Council of
Judges.
Mutual regulation is software as a
means to create an ideal, harmonious and
respectful cooperative relationship.
Sectoral ego attitudes need to be avoided,
especially on matters that have the
potential to cause polemics that can hinder
and harm the common goal of KY and MA
in maintaining and enforcing the code of
ethics and behavior of judges.
Judges are ordinary people who do not
escape from mistakes and mistakes. That
the judge's temptation is very big in
deciding a case. A proper and correct
monitoring system by Internal Supervisors
and External Supervisors is very much
needed so that Judges are more careful and
not easy to play with a case. Therefore
judges must set an example and role model
and show more obedience than others,
especially in terms of law enforcement and
justice (Ferreira & Mueller, 2014). The
Supreme Court as an actor of judicial power
requires ideal cooperation with KY,
especially in the field of external
supervision of the Code of Ethics and Code
of Conduct for judges at all levels of the
judiciary.
Whereas public complaints are a means
of control for KY and MA. The control tool
must be used objectively and
coordinatively by the Judicial Commission
and the Supreme Court. The
professionalism and independence of
judges must be respected. Whereas in
order to avoid friction and polemics in the
field, an ideal relationship is needed
between the Judicial Commission and the
Supreme Court to carry out preventive
efforts in the corridor of fostering and
supervising violations of the Code of Ethics
and Code of Conduct for Judges.
External supervision by the Judicial
Commission in maintaining and enforcing
the code of ethics and code of conduct for
judges must be carried out properly and
correctly so that this does not cause conflict
and rejection from the judge being
examined. The opinion about the tendency
of the Supreme Court to protect fellow
Judge Corps on the grounds that KY has
interfered with the judge's authority in the
technical field of Judicial must be
straightened out. That this difference of
opinion must be properly neutralized so
that it does not become an obstacle in
carrying out tasks as mandated by law. The
above issues should not be allowed to
Markoni | 1179
develop in order to prevent conflicts of
interest that can harm both parties. To
avoid this potential, joint efforts are needed
to improve the ideal relationship between
MA and KY. It takes togetherness,
awareness and greatness of soul to
understand each other's position and
authority. Constructive coordination and
communication need to be built to
establish an ideal relationship in finding
solutions related to judicial technicalities so
that they do not hinder the task of
maintaining and upholding the honor,
dignity, and behavior of judges.
METHODS
The research methodology used in this
paper uses the Normative Empirical
research method, namely researching
through juridical normative provisions in
the form of applicable laws and regulations
with a literature study approach in the form
of secondary data and analyzing it using
empirical data based on facts from several
events that are considered to have
problems in the course of the relationship
between the Judicial Commission and the
Supreme Court.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A. The Duties and Authorities of KY in
Carrying Out External Supervision
according to the Provisions of
Applicable Laws.
In the management system of every
organization, supervision is always
needed. Supervision basically has a
good purpose, namely to prevent and
avoid as early as possible the
occurrence of various potential errors,
mistakes, or abuse of authority.
Supervisory agencies are usually given
the authority to take action or
straighten things out when things go
wrong. A good monitoring system
becomes a pressure valve for the
possibility of various forms of
irregularities in an organization and
personnel. Supervision can be carried
out with preventive or repressive
actions.
The position of KY as a supervisory
agency has been regulated in Article 24
B of the 1945 Constitution, paragraph
(1) That KY is independent in nature and
has the authority to propose the
appointment of Supreme Court justices
and has other powers in order to
maintain and uphold the honor, dignity
and behavior of judges .
Then in Article 13 of Law No.18 of
2011 concerning Amendments to Law
No.22 of 2004 concerning KY, the
authority of KY includes: Proposing the
appointment of Supreme Court Justices
and ad hoc in MA to DPR for approval;
Maintain and uphold the honor, dignity,
and behavior of judges; Establish a
Code of Ethics and/or Code of Conduct
for Judges together with the Supreme
Court and maintain and enforce the
implementation of the Code of Ethics
and/or Code of Conduct for Judges.
Meanwhile, the KY's duties are: To
monitor and supervise the behavior of
judges; Receive reports from the public
regarding violations of the Code of
Ethics and/or Code of Conduct for
Judges; Conducting verification,
clarification, and investigation of
reports of alleged violations of the
1180 | The Relationship of The Judicial Commission with the Ideal Supreme Court
Code of Ethics and/or Code of Conduct
of Judges in a closed manner; Decide
whether or not reports of alleged
violations of the Code of Ethics and/or
Code of Conduct of Judges are correct;
Take legal steps and/or other steps
against individuals, groups of people,
or legal entities that degrade the honor
and dignity of the judge.
In connection with the tasks that
have been regulated in the legislation
mentioned above, any power, including
judicial power, has the potential to be
misused so that it deviates from the
given normative purpose. That this
potential can be prevented and avoided
if the power holder has high moral
integrity so that he is able to control
himself not to do this. The system of
supervision, prevention, guidance, and
prosecution of judges must be able to
work properly and sustainably.
KY in carrying out external
supervision is only given the authority
regarding ethical issues and judges'
behavior and does not enter the area of
a technical judicial nature. Supervision
must not be carried out in such a way
as to violate the constitutionally
guaranteed independence of judges.
The judge's decision must be
considered correct, until the decision is
annulled by a higher court decision (Res
Judicata pro veritate habetur). The
Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct for
Judges that have been jointly
determined by the Chairperson of the
Supreme Court and the Chairperson of
the Judicial Commission are the
parameters for evaluating the conduct
of judges' ethics and behavior. KY
cannot act alone as an ethical court
because the ethical trial of judges is
carried out by the Honorary Council of
Judges which was formed jointly
between MA and KY. The Honorary
Council of Judges (MKH) performs its
function as an "ethical court" against
judges suspected of committing ethical
violations. MKH has the authority to
assess and decide based on evidence of
alleged ethical violations by judges as
being examined.
B. Supervision Problems Between KY
and MA.
There have been several problems
in the relationship between KY and the
Supreme Court, so that there is an
assumption that KY has violated the
provisions so that it does not receive
support and approval from the
Supreme Court in carrying out its duties
to maintain and enforce the Code of
Ethics and Code of Conduct for Judges.
The following describes several events
that can serve as examples and lessons
for KY and MA:
1. Events and Problems in the
relationship between KY and MA.
KY in carrying out its duties receives
many complaints from the public,
these complaints are a means to
monitor the behavior of judges who
violate the code of ethics and code
of conduct of judges. KY in
following up on the complaint
requires evidence, verification and
coordination with the Court and
related parties including the
Supreme Court, especially through
the Supreme Court Supervisory
Markoni | 1181
Body as the executor of control
internalSome examples of incidents
that have become obstacles to the
relationship between KY and the
MA include:
a. case of Nurmah-mudi Ismail's
victory as mayor of Depok who
had received a warning from KY
by sending a recommendation
to the MA to fire the chairman
of the panel of judges who was
then chairman of the Java High
Court. west along with two
other judges as members of the
assembly. In fact , the Supreme
Court did not immediately
follow up on the KY's
recommendation because the
Supreme Court considered the
decision to be within the realm
of the Judicial Technical.
b. The incident of the former head
of the DKI Jakarta High Court on
behalf of Harifin in the
Arthaloka land dispute case. KY
has proposed the idea of re-
selection of Supreme Court
justices. KY together with the
Minister of Law and Human
Rights Hamid Awaluddin tried
to meet President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono to discuss
the re-selection. The judges,
who felt that their reputation
had been harmed, tried to
report the chairman of the
Judicial Commission, then
Busyro Muqoddas , to the police
on charges of defamation. The
dispute escalated when 40
Supreme Court justices in
March 2006 filed a petition for a
judicial review of Law no. 22 of
2004 concerning KY to the
Constitutional Court (MK).
c. In 2010 the Judicial Commission
attempted to examine 7 (seven)
Supreme Court justices who
were deemed to have violated
the code of ethics and code of
conduct of judges including
Paulus Effendy Lotulung, Djoko
Sarwoko, Ahmad Sukarja, I
Made Tara, Mansur Kartayasa,
Judge Nyak Pha, and Imam
Soebechi.
d. In February 2016 KY and MA
had a difference of opinion in
the case of Sarpin Rizaldi as the
sole judge in the case of
Commissioner General of Police
Budi Gunawan at the South
Jakarta District Court where
Judge Sarpin was judged to
have violated the code of ethics
and the Code of Conduct of
Judges because he was
considered trying to expand the
object of pre-trial. By making
the determination of the
suspect an object of pre-trial, KY
considers Judge Sarpin to have
jumped the fence in assessing
and making decisions . As a
result of the decision , Herry
Swantoro, Ibnu Prasetyo, and
Nugroho Setiadji were given a
sentence of 6 (six) months of
not being allowed to try cases.
1182 | The Relationship of The Judicial Commission with the Ideal Supreme Court
C. Influencing Factors
That in order to build and maintain
an ideal cooperative relationship
between the Judicial Commission and
the Supreme Court in carrying out their
supervisory duties on the Code of Ethics
and the Code of Conduct of Judges, it
is certain that there will be obstacles
and it is certain that there will also be
opportunities to overcome them.
Awareness to evaluate the weaknesses
of each -Each institution is very
necessary in order to be able to develop
strength with enthusiasm to solve all
problems. Related to this, there are
several factors that influence the ideal
cooperative relationship between KY
and MA. These factors are sourced from
within (Internal Factors) and sourced
from outside (External Factors). The
discussion of these two factors is
described as follows:
1. Internal
Factors influencing the KY and
MA Institutions include human
resources factors ( HR). That
personnel who are placed as
executor of duties in the field of
supervision must be equipped with
qualified human resources.
Implementing tasks must master
their duties well and professionally,
that there will be many potential
risks if supervisory actors are placed
or carried out by people who are
still unfamiliar with knowledge and
have no experience and experience
academic limitations so that this
can be a weakness that can harm
the organization itself. polemic in
carrying out tasks in the field. The
capabilities and knowledge capacity
possessed must be followed by
personal integrity that meets
qualification standards as good and
honest personnel so that they are
not easily tempted and are not
easily influenced or collided with
tactics of playing against each other
by other parties who take
advantage of interests.
Another factor that influences
internally is the problem of
completeness of facilities and
infrastructure for KY and MA. That
facilities and infrastructure must be
able to fulfill and support tasks in
accordance with current
technological developments. If
there is a weakness if the state has
not been able to meet the shortage
of facilities and infrastructure, it
should not be a reason for not
being able to carry out the duties
and responsibilities in carrying out
supervision. To overcome these
weaknesses need strength and
initiative as well as creativity not to
give up on the situation. Good
initiatives will be an important force
to find solutions to limited facilities
and infrastructure.
Evaluation and improvement of
the existing system must be able to
be updated in the concept of
improving performance and
overcoming the shortcomings and
weaknesses of the rules by making
fixed procedures (Protap) or
Standard Operating Procedures
(SOPs) that are made internally so
that flexibility in controlling and
Markoni | 1183
improving work results becomes a
strength. for KY and MA
institutions.
That it must be avoided that
there are indications of Subjective
Assessment and Arrogance from
the Supreme Court that the Judicial
Commission has arrogantly carried
out its duties and has entered or
intervened in the technical judicial
area. KY must ensure that judges do
not feel that their independence is
disturbed so that there is a
tendency to ignore calls,
reprimands and even go against the
decisions made by KY. The Supreme
Court is also not allowed to
facilitate or allow Judges who are
being investigated to submit
complaints to the police with
accusations of defamation, as in
several examples of cases that have
occurred.
Building a good coordination
and communication is an influential
factor because its basis lies in the
ability and goodwill of the
personnel who accept the
responsibility as task bearers.
Differences of opinion on an object
of supervision are interpreted as
wealth to act more objectively and
professionally. If there is an
argument against the opinion of KY
that a deviant and unfair decision
by a judge is a violation of the code
of ethics and code of conduct of
judges because it is made
intentionally or because there are
certain strings attached. In this
regard, the Supreme Court also
dares to introspect and evaluate by
prioritizing good coordination and
communication.
2. External
Factors Factors that externally
affect the Judicial Commission and
the Supreme Court are sourced
from several factors, for example for
the Supreme Court itself that the
influence of external supervision
from the Judicial Commission has
made the Supreme Court continue
to improve itself, including the
Supreme Court itself has made a
long-term program through
printing. blue Judicial Update 2010-
2035. The Supreme Court carried
out reforms to accelerate the
settlement of cases, open access to
court information to address
corrupt courts.
In relation to improving the
integrity of judges and other
judicial apparatus, the Supreme
Court has developed Information
Technology such as the availability
of a Case Search Information
System Application (SIPP) Website,
E-Court Application, SIWAS
Application, andOne Day Publish.
The Supreme Court believes that a
strong Information Technology (IT)
will increase the “Risk of being
found out” against violations of the
Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct
for Judges.
Improving and procuring
modern Information Technology by
the Supreme Court can have an
impact on KY itself. There is a
perception from the Supreme Court
1184 | The Relationship of The Judicial Commission with the Ideal Supreme Court
that the modernization of
equipment and information
disclosure system from the
Supreme Court will make it easier
for the supervisory system and
receipt of complaints so that
external supervision by the Judicial
Commission is considered stale
because the Supreme Court's
supervisory body has already
carried out external actions and
guidance to judges. The
strengthening of internal
supervision by the Supreme Court,
such as the occurrence of this
preemptive action, seems to
undermine the role of KY. So there
is an assumption that the role of KY
in carrying out external supervision
is no longer needed.
The power of coordination and
communication of the Supreme
Court in the Criminal Justice System
(Starting from Investigators,
Prosecutors, Defenders and Judges)
if misused by the Supreme Court, it
will become an obstacle for the
Judicial Commission if the Supreme
Court takes advantage of this
opportunity for negative purposes
considering that the Judicial
Commission is not included in the
Criminal Justice System (Kennedy,
2012). The Supreme Court as an old,
stronger and more modern
organization can take advantage of
political power through the
government and the Legislature if
the Supreme Court abuses that
power. That the Supreme Court can
abuse and threaten the law
enforcement process that makes
the Judicial Commission weak if the
government and the DPR have
taken sides and discriminated
against budget issues and
weakened regulations by giving
privileges to the Supreme Court so
that the independence of judges
can be utilized by individuals or
groups from the government and
the DPR who have interest.
D. Efforts to Improve the Ideal
Relationship between KY and the
Supreme Court
1. The concept of Good,
Harmonious and Constructive
Supervision Basically, the
supervisory function carried out by
the Supreme Court and the
supervisory function carried out by
the Judicial Commission both have
a very noble goal, namely how to
maintain the dignity and authority
of judges in the trial was called as
His Majesty. The summons aims to
carry out the duties of examining,
adjudicating and deciding cases in
a professional manner in
accordance with their duties and
authorities. For this reason, the
Supreme Court and the Judicial
Commission need to build and
maintain an ideal relationship by
implementing the concept of good
supervision for both parties in a
constructive harmonization
(Davidson, Van Dyne, & Lin, 2017);
(Minkov, Schneider, Lehmann, &
Finkbeiner, 2015).
Markoni | 1185
2. Establishing the Principles of
Equality, Objectivity and
Accountability
Whereas in the supervision and
examination of alleged violations of
the Code of Ethics and the Code of
Conduct of Judges, mechanisms for
monitoring the behavior of judges
between the Judicial Commission
and the Supreme Court have been
regulated. The mechanism and
method of submitting
recommendations for disciplinary
punishment by the Judicial
Commission and the determination
of disciplinary penalties by the
Supreme Court are carried out by
building the principles of Equality,
Objectivity and Accountability. The
mechanism of formation and
examination by the Honorary
Council of Judges must guarantee
the rights and legal certainty of the
parties who are the object of
supervision or examination. That
there is a need for minimum
standards for the implementation
of supervision and inspection
activities in order to accommodate
the principles of objectivity and
accountability of supervisory
activities. An understanding to
implement these principles can
guarantee the implementation of
an ideal relationship between the
Judicial Commission and the
Supreme Court.
3. Maintaining, Enforcing and
Enhancing Judges' Capacity
Whereas the Judicial
Commission in carrying out
strategic activities must be oriented
towards maintaining and respecting
the applicable provisions and
preventing sharp differences in the
assessment of the results of
supervision, especially on the
results of judges' decisions that are
deviant and unfair. Differences in
the Judicial Commission's
assessment that resulted in the
imposition of sanctions on judges
due to differences in interpretation
between the internal supervisor of
the Supreme Court and the external
supervisor of the Judicial
Commission as far as possible were
coordinated and an objective
solution was sought. That the
concept of supervision should be
carried out not to find fault and not
to seek cheap popularity which can
harm the Judge as the examinee.
The principle of supervision is to
ensure that the performance of
judges is in accordance with the
code of ethics and behavioral
guidelines for judges that are
oriented towards upholding the
honor, dignity and behavior of
judges. KY should not only focus on
taking action against violations of
the Code of Ethics for the Code of
Conduct for Judges (KEPPH) but
should be oriented towards
preventing, fostering and
increasing the capacity of Judges to
minimize KEPPH violations by not
neglecting the welfare of judges.
1186 | The Relationship of The Judicial Commission with the Ideal Supreme Court
CONCLUSIONS
There are two factors that influence
relationship between KY and MA, namely
internal factors and external factors.
Whereas in Internal Factors there are
several weaknesses and these weaknesses
can actually be used as strengths if they are
used properly. While in External Factors
there are several obstacles that can result in
losses and vice versa can be used as
opportunities if managed properly and
intelligently.
The ideal effort that can be made in the
relationship between KY and the Supreme
Court can run well if both build a working
relationship in the field of supervision with
the principles of equality, objectivity,
responsibility by prioritizing mutual respect
and understanding each other's duties and
responsibilities without showing sectoral
ego. KY and the Supreme Court can
constructively and harmoniously build
relationships based on their respective
duties and authorities and always maintain
an ideal relationship and avoid unnecessary
noise. KY in carrying out external
supervision must be oriented to
strengthening the duties and functions of
the Supreme Court in supervising the
performance of judges. Carry out
coordination and communication in a
positive manner and avoid finding fault or
seeking cheap popularity and ensure that
the performance of judges is in accordance
with the code of ethics and code of conduct
of judges.
REFERENCES
Beveridge, Rachelle, Moody, Megan,
Murray, Grant, Darimont, Chris, & Pauly,
Bernie. (2020). The Nuxalk Sputc
(Eulachon) Project: strengthening
Indigenous management authority
through community-driven research.
Marine Policy, 4(2), 1032–1045.
Davidson, Tina, Van Dyne, Linn, & Lin, Bilian.
(2017). Too attached to speak up? It
depends: How supervisor–subordinate
guanxi and perceived job control
influence upward constructive voice.
Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 4(3), 39–53.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.0
7.002
Deng, Jinting. (2018). The National
Supervision Commission: A new anti-
corruption model in China.
International Journal of Law, Crime and
Justice, 5(2), 58–73.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.09.0
05
Ferreira, Pedro Fernando Almeida Nery, &
Mueller, Bernardo. (2014). How judges
think in the Brazilian Supreme Court:
Estimating ideal points and identifying
dimensions. Economia, 5(3), 275–293.
Handelman, Chester S., & Greene, Charles
S. (2013). Progressive/idiopathic
condylar resorption: an orthodontic
perspective. Seminars in Orthodontics,
10(2), 55–70. Elsevier.
https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2012.11.
004
Hasmi, Edy. (2017). Supervisory Function on
Judges: Prevent Corruption Context.
The Southeast Asia Law Journal, 1(2),
75–86.
Markoni | 1187
Hirschi, Andreas, & Herrmann, Anne.
(2013). Calling and career preparation:
Investigating developmental patterns
and temporal precedence. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 8(3), 51–60.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2013.02.0
08
Hoesein, Zainal Arifin. (2016).
Strengthening the Role and Function of
Judicial Commission in Building Clean
and Respectable Justice in Indonesia.
Scientific Research Journal (SCIRJ), 4(3),
1–7.
Kennedy, Kieran M. (2012). The relationship
of victim injury to the progression of
sexual crimes through the criminal
justice system. Journal of Forensic and
Legal Medicine, 9(6), 309–311.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jflm.2012.04.0
33
Minkov, Nikolay, Schneider, Laura,
Lehmann, Annekatrin, & Finkbeiner,
Matthias. (2015). Type III environmental
declaration programmes and
harmonization of product category
rules: status quo and practical
challenges. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 9(4), 235–246.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.0
2.012
Nurlaelawati, Euis, & Rahim, Abdurrahman.
(2012). The training, appointment, and
supervision of Islamic judges in
Indonesia. Pac. Rim L. & Pol’y J., 2(2), 43.
Pekkanen, Petra, & Niemi, Petri. (2013).
Process performance improvement in
justice organizations—Pitfalls of
performance measurement.
International Journal of Production
Economics, 4(2), 605–611.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.08.0
09
Rifai, Ahmad. (2010). Legal Discovery by
Judge in Progressive Legal Perspective.
In Sinar Grafika, Jakarta. Jakarta: Sinar
Grafika.
Sillen, Joost. (2019). The concept of ‘internal
judicial independence’in the case law of
the European Court of Human Rights.
European Constitutional Law Review,
5(1), 104–133.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S15740196190
00014
© 2022 by the authors. Submitted
for possible open access publication
under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution (CC BY SA) license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/).
