This paper examines the role of the Judicial Honorary Council (MKH) in supervising judges' ethics in Indonesia, within the framework of the joint regulation between the Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court. The establishment of the Judicial Commission in 1999 marked a crucial step in addressing the need for independent external supervision of the judiciary, aimed at ensuring a transparent, fair, and professional judicial system. The paper highlights the significant role of the Judicial Commission in monitoring judges' behavior, proposing the appointment of judges, and enforcing the Code of Ethics and Judicial Conduct Guidelines. However, despite its mandate, the Judicial Commission’s recommendations often face non-compliance from the Supreme Court, particularly regarding technical judicial violations. The Judicial Honorary Council, as part of the Supreme Court's internal supervisory mechanism, plays a pivotal role in processing violations committed by judges. This research identifies the challenges faced by MKH in enforcing the code of ethics, such as indecisiveness, potential conflicts of interest, and inadequate follow-up on recommendations. These challenges undermine the effectiveness of the supervision system, highlighting the need for improved coordination and clearer delineation of authority between the Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court. The paper also emphasizes the importance of strengthening the collaboration between these two institutions to ensure a consistent and effective judicial supervision system. Through an in-depth legal analysis, the study concludes that enhancing transparency, accountability, and objectivity in the supervision process is essential for fostering public trust in the Indonesian judicial system.
Merta et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: