The Independence and Accountability of the Constitutional Court in the Constitutional System in Indonesia

Abstract

This study aims to examine and analyze the independence and accountability of the Constitutional Court in the constitutional system in Indonesia. This study uses a normative juridical method with a statute approach. The collection of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials is carried out using literature study techniques. The collected legal material is analyzed using qualitative data analysis methods to describe the problem and answer study purposes. The results show that the Constitutional Court acts as the interpreter and guardian of the constitution. In addition, the Constitutional Court also acts as a guardian of human rights, citizens’ constitutional rights, and democracy. Furthermore, independence and accountability in a judicial process are like two sides of a coin. These cannot be separated because the two principles complement each other. Although the Constitutional Court has implemented duties and functions based on the principle of accountability. However, the independence of the Constitutional Court as the executor of Judicial Power has finally been lost. The Constitutional Court is now a judicial institution whose position is limited to sub-ordination from the other spheres of State Power which proposes Judges to fill in the Constitutional Court. Therefore, it is recommended that Constitutional Judges maintain their independence even though their positions result from proposals by other spheres of State Power. It is also recommended that the President and the House of Representatives uphold the mechanism of checks and balances between spheres of state power based on democratic principles. In this case, to realize the ideals of a law-based and democratic-based state for the sake of a more recognized national and state life.

Personnel Regulation at the Secretariat of the Attorney Commission of the Republic of Indonesia

“…As intended by the provisions above, the support quality encompasses various aspects, including precision in duty execution, response speed, and the accuracy and reliability of information or data provided (Rezah & Sapada, 2023). Moreover, the Secretariat operates under a dual domain of responsibility, as based on Article 18 section (4) of Presidential Regulation Number 18 of 2011, which regulates that:…”

“…The complexity and scale of these duties unquestionably demand high effectiveness and efficiency. In the context of the substantial number of personnel in the Attorney General's Office, innovative management strategies and approaches become imperative to maximize output and minimize impediments (Rezah & Sapada, 2023) The explanation of the provisions above reinforces the definition of professions within the public sector, thus minimizing the scope and function of Honorary Staff within the governmental organizational structure. In a broader context, eliminating Honorary Staff is one of the government's steps to achieve bureaucratic reform (Sekhuti, 2022).…”