Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary

Adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders held at Milan from 26 August to 6 September 1985 and endorsed by General Assembly resolutions 40/32 of 29 November 1985 and 40/146 of 13 December 1985.

Whereas in the Charter of the United Nations the peoples of the world affirm, inter alia , their determination to establish conditions under which justice can be maintained to achieve international co-operation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination;

Whereas the Universal Declaration of Human Rights enshrines in particular the principles of equality before the law, of the presumption of innocence and of the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law;

Whereas the International Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights both guarantee the exercise of those rights, and in addition, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further guarantees the right to be tried without undue delay;

Whereas frequently there still exists a gap between the vision underlying those principles and the actual situation;

Whereas the organization and administration of justice in every country should be inspired by those principles, and efforts should be undertaken to translate them fully into reality;

Whereas rules concerning the exercise of judicial office should aim at enabling judges to act in accordance with those principles; 

Whereas judges are charged with the ultimate decision over life, freedoms, rights, duties and property of citizens,

Whereas the Sixth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, by its resolution 16, called upon the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control to include among its priorities the elaboration of guidelines relating to the independence of judges and the selection, professional training and status of judges and prosecutors,

Whereas it is, therefore, appropriate that consideration be first given to the role of judges in relation to the system of justice and to the importance of their selection, training and conduct,

The following basic principles, formulated to assist Member States in their task of securing and promoting the independence of the judiciary should be taken into account and respected by Governments within the framework of their national legislation and practice and be brought to the attention of judges, lawyers, members of the executive and the legislature and the public in general. The principles have been formulated principally with professional judges in mind, but they apply equally, as appropriate, to lay judges, where they exist. 

Independence of the judiciary 

1. The independence of the judiciary shall be guaranteed by the State and enshrined in the Constitution or the law of the country. It is the duty of all governmental and other institutions to respect and observe the independence of the judiciary.

 

2. The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason. 

3. The judiciary shall have jurisdiction over all issues of a judicial nature and shall have exclusive authority to decide whether an issue submitted for its decision is within its competence as defined by law. 

4. There shall not be any inappropriate or unwarranted interference with the judicial process, nor shall judicial decisions by the courts be subject to revision. This principle is without prejudice to judicial review or to mitigation or commutation by competent authorities of sentences imposed by the judiciary, in accordance with the law. 

5. Everyone shall have the right to be tried by ordinary courts or tribunals using established legal procedures. Tribunals that do not use the duly established procedures of the legal process shall not be created to displace the jurisdiction belonging to the ordinary courts or judicial tribunals. 

6. The principle of the independence of the judiciary entitles and requires the judiciary to ensure that judicial proceedings are conducted fairly and that the rights of the parties are respected.

 

7. It is the duty of each Member State to provide adequate resources to enable the judiciary to properly perform its functions. 

Freedom of expression and association

 

8. In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are like other citizens entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly; provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary.

 

9. Judges shall be free to form and join associations of judges or other organizations to represent their interests, to promote their professional training and to protect their judicial independence.

Qualifications, selection and training 

10. Persons selected for judicial office shall be individuals of integrity and ability with appropriate training or qualifications in law. Any method of judicial selection shall safeguard against judicial appointments for improper motives. In the selection of judges, there shall be no discrimination against a person on the grounds of race, colour, sex, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or status, except that a requirement, that a candidate for judicial office must be a national of the country concerned, shall not be considered discriminatory. 

Conditions of service and tenure

 

11. The term of office of judges, their independence, security, adequate remuneration, conditions of service, pensions and the age of retirement shall be adequately secured by law. 

12. Judges, whether appointed or elected, shall have guaranteed tenure until a mandatory retirement age or the expiry of their term of office, where such exists. 

13. Promotion of judges, wherever such a system exists, should be based on objective factors, in particular ability, integrity and experience. 

14. The assignment of cases to judges within the court to which they belong is an internal matter of judicial administration. 

Professional secrecy and immunity 

15. The judiciary shall be bound by professional secrecy with regard to their deliberations and to confidential information acquired in the course of their duties other than in public proceedings, and shall not be compelled to testify on such matters. 

16. Without prejudice to any disciplinary procedure or to any right of appeal or to compensation from the State, in accordance with national law, judges should enjoy personal immunity from civil suits for monetary damages for improper acts or omissions in the exercise of their judicial functions.

 

Discipline, suspension and removal 

17. A charge or complaint made against a judge in his/her judicial and professional capacity shall be processed expeditiously and fairly under an appropriate procedure. The judge shall have the right to a fair hearing. The examination of the matter at its initial stage shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise requested by the judge. 

18. Judges shall be subject to suspension or removal only for reasons of incapacity or behaviour that renders them unfit to discharge their duties.

 

19. All disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings shall be determined in accordance with established standards of judicial conduct. 

20. Decisions in disciplinary, suspension or removal proceedings should be subject to an independent review. This principle may not apply to the decisions of the highest court and those of the legislature in impeachment or similar proceedings.

Hakim, Suap, dan Kesejahteraan

Oleh Achmad Fauzi

Suara Karya Online Kamis, 1 Desember 2011
 

      Sorotan publik terhadap hakim akhir-akhir ini sangat tajam. Produk putusan yang dinilai tidak memenuhi rasa keadilan disinyalir memiliki kandungan kecurangan dan unsur kejahatan hukum di dalamnya. Di Pengadilan Tipikor (Tindak Pidana Korupsi), misalnya, vonis bebas dianggap petaka yang harus segera ditelusuri, baik dari segi materi putusan maupun kemungkinan keterlibatan oknum hakim dalam praktik jual beli hukum.

      Penulis sesungguhnya tidak setuju jika putusan pengadilan direcoki oleh otoritas non-yudisial karena bisa menjadi petaka bagi kemerdekaan hakim dalam mengadili suatu perkara. Sementara entitas pengadilan yang bebas dari pengaruh luar mensyaratkan adanya imunitas yudisial dan independensi hakim. Oleh karena itu, kita harus kembali kepada undang-undang yang memberikan saluran tersendiri sehingga ketidakpuasan terhadap putusan pengadilan ditempuh melalui upaya hukum yang lebih tinggi. 

     Kendati demikian masyarakat tetap memiliki ruang yang luas untuk memantau kinerja peradilan. Iklim keterbukaan peradilan yang selama ini dibangun serta rencana pendirian jejaring Komisi Yudisial (KY) di daerah sebagaimana termaktub dalam UU Komisi Yudisial yang baru, sangat membantu masyarakat dalam memantau dan melaporkan oknum hakim yang diduga melakukan pelanggaran kode etik dan mengurangi timbangan keadilan. Ini kemajuan menggembirakan.

           

     Lihat saja, data hukuman disiplin berikut ini. Sepanjang tahun 2010, Mahkamah Agung merilis setidaknya ada 110 hakim yang dikenai sanksi. Perinciannya, sebanyak 33 hakim dihukum berat, 13 hakim dihukum sedang, dan 64 hakim dihukum ringan. Sedangkan hukuman disiplin periode Januari-September 2011 yang dijatuhkan kepada hakim berjumlah 35 orang Pelanggaran kode etik yang dikategorikan berat, salah satunya adalah praktik jual beli hukum.

      

     Banyak pakar berasumsi bahwa praktik jual beli hukum tumbuh subur karena kran informasi di pengadilan tersumbat, sehingga menghambat hak publik untuk mengontrol secara langsung etos kerja aparat peradilan. Namun, asumsi itu tidak sepenuhnya benar. 

     Mahkamah Agung melalui KMA 1-144/2011 Tentang Pedoman Pelayanan Informasi di Pengadilan, telah membuka akses yang seluas-luasnya bagi masyarakat untuk memperoleh informasi, mulai dari publikasi putusan, transparansi anggaran dan biaya perkara, pos bantuan hukum, standar operasional prosedur beracara, hingga prosedur pengaduan bagi yang tidak puas atas pelayanan peradilan.

       Bahkan hasil penelitian Pemerintah Amerika Serikat (AS) terhadap layanan pengadilan di Indonesia, beberapa waktu lalu, menunjukkan persepsi positif. Sebanyak 70% masyarakat Indonesia menyatakan puas jika berurusan dengan birokrasi di pengadilan. Meski ada beberapa aparat peradilan yang tersangkut kasus suap dan pelanggaran kode etik lainnya, namun masyarakat menilai mekanisme kerja yang dibangun MA telah memenuhi syarat terwujudnya good sustainable development governance. 

Sebab Utama

    Penulis melihat bahwa persoalan utama praktik jual beli hukum di pengadilan lebih dipengaruhi oleh dua faktor, yakni moral dan finansial. Ketua Mahkamah Konstitusi, Moh Mahfud MD dalam seminar "Suap dan Pemerasan dalam Perspektif Moral dan Penegakan Hukum" yang diselenggarakan oleh Ikatan Alumni Universitas Islam Indonesia (UII), baru-baru ini mengatakan bahwa aturan moral di masyarakat lebih efektif dalam mencegah terjadinya suap dan pemerasan.

         

       Suap bagi hakim merupakan godaan berat dalam proses supremasi hukum dan keadilan. Kendati hakim kuat menahan godaan suap, tak jarang anak dan keluarganya menjadi sasaran suap. Para penyuap kadangkala paham membaca situasi, ia datang tatkala hakim atau keluarganya sedang membutuhkan sokongan finansial.

       

   Oleh karena itu, untuk membendung godaan suap, hakim harus membentengi diri dengan kesadaran moral dan keimanan yang kokoh. Kesadaran itu tentunya harus ditumbuhkan dan dibiasakan dari lingkungan keluarga yang notabene menjadi komunitas terkecil dalam masyarakat berbangsa.

     Ada ajaran kebajikan yang mengatakan, jika ingin menjadi bangsa bermartabat, maka perbaikilah perilaku pemimpinnya. Jika ingin memperbaiki moral pemimpin, tatalah peradaban masyarakatnya. Jika ingin memperbaiki kualitas masyarakat, maka perbaikilah moral keluarganya. Jika moral keluarga sudah baik, maka baik pula tatanan masyarakatnya, kualitas pemimpinnya, dan martabat bangsanya.

      Semangat untuk menegakkan kode etik/moral bagi hakim tanpa dibarengi dengan kebijakan pemerintah dengan memberikan gaji dan fasilitas yang cukup kepada hakim, seperti menegakkan benang yang basah. Perlu dipahami, bahwa hakim dalam UU disebut sebagai pejabat negara. Namun fasilitas dan penggajiannya tidak mencerminkan pejabat negara.

      Ketika PNS setiap tahun naik gaji, hakim tidak demikian. Banyak hakim di daerah yang harus mengontrak rumah petak, lantaran tidak memiliki rumah dinas. Ke kantor naik becak, angkot atau jalan kaki karena tidak ada kendaraan dinas. Sungguh sangat memprihatinkan. Mereka sangat rentan menerima suap jika tidak memiliki kesadaran moral yang tinggi.

            Mantan Ketua KPK Taufiequrrahman Ruki pernah menyampaikan bahwa reformasi aparatur peradilan bisa dilakukan, salah satunya dengan pemuliaan hakim. Yaitu, jadikan hakim sebagai the honourable, yang dimuliakan dengan memberi gaji, upah, tunjangan dan fasilitas terbaik bagi hakim. *** 

Penulis adalah Hakim Pengadilan Agama Kotabaru, Kalsel, alumnus UII Yogyakarta.