PENGAWASAN HAKIM SEBELUM DAN PASCA KELUARNYA UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 18 TAHUN 2011 PERUBAHAN ATAS UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 22 TAHUN 2004 TENTANG KOMISI YUDISIAL

Abstract

Judicial Commission as State institutions that are independent who has authority and duty to supervise the conduct of judges in order to uphold the honor and dignity and behavior of judges. So the authors raised issues about How the supervision of judges before and after the release of Act No. 18 of 2011 amendments to the Act No. 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission. What are the constraints faced by the Judicial Commission in order to carry out the supervision of the judge. The method used in this study is that normative legal research done by examining library materials or secondary data. The results of this study it can be concluded that the supervision of the judge before the release of Act No. 18 of 2011 amendments to the Act No. 22 of 2004 are still limiting the authority of the Judicial Commission, when there are several recommendations of the Judicial Commission to the Supreme Court that is not fully responded. Post-discharge surveillance against judges Act No. 18 of 2011 amendments to the Law No. 22 Year 2004 on the Judicial Commission after a change of this Act provide reinforcement to the Judicial Commission both in terms of institutional, authority, and in terms of adding new tasks. Judicial Commission granted new authority that establishes a code of ethics and code of conduct of judges along with the Supreme Court as well as maintaining and enforcing its implementation. Constraints faced by the Judicial Commission in order to supervise the Judicial Commission judges that the authority is still limited, resulting in an arbitrary stage recommendation without a judge can impose sanctions on those convicted.

Keywords: Judicial Commission, Supreme Court, surveillance and judges