The Puzzle of Judicial Communication in Indonesia: The Media, the Court, and the Chief Justice

Hendrianto, Stefanus

doi:10.1017/9781316672228.008

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The former Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Akil Moktar, who was sentenced to life in prison and a member of the Constitutional Court Patrialis Akbar, sentenced to 8 years in prison, is an empirical fact of the most substantial corruption cases in the judiciary. The arrest of judges also makes sensational stories in the media (Hendrianto, 2016), the case of the arrest of six people, including two South Jakarta District Court judges, by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) in a night arrest operation on Tuesday, November 27…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice Sector Corruption: Will Indonesia Neutralize it?

Idy

Sahabuddin

2021

Int. J. Criminol. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Though there are vigorous efforts made to fight corruption attitude and behavior, in Indonesia the judiciary sector is still characterized by the existence of rampant widespread corruption acts of crime. For instance, there are many judges who have been caught being bribed across the country. From the available data, of the 19 judges at the Corruption Eradication Commission, 53% are those who make up the Corruption Adhoc judges, while the remaining 47% are career judges. Objective: This research was conducted to determine the corrupt behavior of judges in relation to carrying out their duties and authority in upholding justice. Method: The study applied a normative juridical research method, which established that corruption behavior exhibited by judges in handling cases is still prone to criminal acts of corruption, is detrimental to justice seekers. Conclusion: Thus, the judge's corrupt behavior as the foremost law enforcer can be prevented as early as possible, if justice is to be upheld at a national level.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Justice Sector Corruption: Will Indonesia Neutralize it?

Idy

Sahabuddin

2021

Int. J. Criminol. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Court Presidents: The Missing Piece in the Puzzle of Judicial Governance

Kosař¹,

Blisa²

2018

Ger. law j.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to provide a new comprehensive understanding of roles of court presidents in judicial governance in Europe. It argues that in order to better understand the role of court presidents in comparative perspective it is necessary to unpack their power into smaller components that can be analyzed separately. We define seven such components: judicial career, jurisprudential, administrative, financial, ambassadorial, and media power, and ancillary powers as a residual category. Subsequently, we zero in on 13 European jurisdictions and rate them according to the strength of their court presidents' powers. By doing so we are developing a Court President Power Index. Based on this Index we question the claim that Western court presidents are always weaker than their Eastern European counterparts and argue that powers of court presidents diverge both within Western Europe and within Eastern Europe, and hence it is difficult to draw the easy line along the West/East axis on this ground. Finally, we problematize our Court President Power Index and show that powers in the meaning of faculty do not necessarily translate into influence since various contingent circumstances (such as the length of court presidents' terms of office, information asymmetry, the structure of the judiciary, the existence of competing judicial self-governance bodies, the role of individuals, the proximity of court presidents to political leaders, the legal profession, legal culture, and the political environment) affect to what extent court presidents may exploit their powers in practice.

show abstract

LGBT Rights and the Constitutional Court

Satrio¹

2022

Constitutional Democracy in Indonesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter explains the decision of the Constitutional Court in a case concerning the rights of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community (the LGBT case) decided in 2017. The petitioners had asked the Court to interpret several provisions of the Criminal Code including Article 292 that punishes adults who commit obscene acts against children. The petitioners argued that the article should also criminalize relations between same-sex adults. In a 5–4 decision, the Court rejected a petition by conservative Muslim organizations. In this case, the Court found that the legislature rather than the Court was the proper institution to consider their argument for the expansion of the scope of criminal law. This may sound like the Court partly agreed with the petitioners. However, this chapter suggests that by deferring the decision to the legislature, the Court still protected the rights of LGBT people; the Court knew that parliament would not be able to gain sufficient support to pass amendments to the penal code. This decision was pragmatic because it balanced the Court’s need to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of a conversative and religious public with the need to prevent the criminalization of the LGBT community.

show abstract

The Puzzle of Judicial Communication in Indonesia: The Media, the Court, and the Chief Justice

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Justice Sector Corruption: Will Indonesia Neutralize it?

Justice Sector Corruption: Will Indonesia Neutralize it?

Court Presidents: The Missing Piece in the Puzzle of Judicial Governance

LGBT Rights and the Constitutional Court

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About