Minimizing unnecessary meddling in the court, including in the selection of the court’s justices, has long been advocated by various stakeholders, especially after a bribery attempt, allegedly involving a judicial candidate and a House member, made headlines in late 2013.

“The KY and the House have been using different mechanisms. The commission focuses on the merit system while the House, as a political entity, has its own mechanism,” KY chairman Aidul Fitriciada Azhari said on Tuesday.

“We want to synchronize the mechanism,” he added.

Hopes for establishing a better recruitment system ran high in 2014 when activists secured a victory in a judicial review case at the Constitutional Court. The ruling stripped the House of its authority to choose one in every three candidates proposed by the KY.

Following the 2014 ruling, legislators are now only able to approve or reject candidates short-listed by the KY.

Uncertainty now reigns due to the absence of clear guidelines on the selection mechanism, illustrated by the fact that the KY and legislators impose different selection standards.

Just one month after the 2014 ruling, the House rejected three candidates proposed by KY for unclear reasons.

Aidul said the KY’s external oversight should work to design guidelines for assessing the skills of candidates.

This year, the KY will propose six justices to replace six sitting justices who are coming to the end of their tenure. (ebf)

Popular

Kadin urges stability after Constitutional Court ruling

Jokowi says transition to new government to begi

BCA loan disbursement surges 17.1 percent yoy in first quarter