Update Artikelilmiah: 54847

FALDI ALIFIAR FAFIAN

NIM

Judul Artikel

Abstrak (Bhs. Indonesia)

Dualisme pengawasan hakim oleh Badan Pengawas Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial dalam dugaan pelanggaran Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim menimbulkan persoalan mengenai batas kewenangan, potensi tumpang tindih pemeriksaan, dan efektivitas penegakan etik. Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis mekanisme pengawasan hakim oleh Badan Pengawas Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial serta menganalisis dualisme kewenangan keduanya dalam penegakan Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, dan pendekatan analitis. Bahan hukum dianalisis secara deduktif untuk memperoleh pemahaman mengenai kewenangan, mekanisme pengawasan, dan hubungan kedua lembaga. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Badan Pengawas Mahkamah Agung melaksanakan pengawasan internal terhadap hakim, sedangkan Komisi Yudisial melaksanakan pengawasan eksternal terhadap perilaku hakim dan mengusulkan penjatuhan sanksi kepada Mahkamah Agung. Dualisme pengawasan terjadi karena kedua lembaga memiliki kewenangan pengawasan yang berbeda secara kelembagaan, tetapi terdapat irisan dalam pemeriksaan dugaan pelanggaran kode etik dan belum terdapat batas yang tegas antara ranah etik dan teknis yudisial serta mekanisme koordinasi yang mengikat. Kondisi tersebut berpotensi menimbulkan pemeriksaan berulang dan mengurangi efektivitas pengawasan. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan penegasan batas ranah etik dan teknis yudisial, integrasi sistem pelaporan satu pintu, serta kewajiban Mahkamah Agung memberikan alasan tertulis atas tindak lanjut usulan sanksi Komisi Yudisial untuk memperkuat akuntabilitas tanpa mengurangi independensi kekuasaan kehakiman.

Abtrak (Bhs. Inggris)

The dualism of judicial oversight by the Supervisory Body of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission in alleged violations of the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct for Judges raises issues concerning the boundaries of authority, potential overlapping investigations, and the effectiveness of ethical enforcement. This study aims to analyze the mechanisms of judicial oversight conducted by the Supervisory Body of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission and to examine the dualism of their respective oversight authorities in enforcing the Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct for Judges. This study employs normative legal research using a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and analytical approach. Legal materials are analyzed deductively to obtain an understanding of the authorities, oversight mechanisms, and relationship between the two institutions. The results show that the Supervisory Body of the Supreme Court conducts internal oversight of judges, while the Judicial Commission exercises external oversight of judicial conduct and proposes the imposition of sanctions to the Supreme Court. The dualism of oversight arises because the two institutions possess different institutional oversight authorities, while their investigations into alleged violations of the judicial code of ethics may overlap, and there are no clear boundaries between ethical and judicial-technical matters or binding coordination mechanisms. This condition potentially leads to repeated investigations and reduces oversight effectiveness. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the boundaries between ethical and judicial-technical matters, integrate a single-entry reporting system, and require the Supreme Court to provide written reasons for its follow-up to sanction proposals submitted by the Judicial Commission in order to strengthen accountability without compromising judicial independence.

Kata kunci

Pembimbing 1

Pembimbing 2

Pembimbing 3

Tahun

Jumlah Halaman