Supreme Court Perspective: Efforts Towards Equality of Term of Office

From the Supreme Court, this proposal was welcomed positively. The MA Spokesperson, Yanto, stated that the MA supports this term limit because it is considered to create equality with the term of office of constitutional judges, which is also limited to a maximum of 15 years or up to the age of 70 years, whichever comes first. Furthermore, Yanto revealed that this arrangement has the potential to resolve the disparity in term of office between Supreme Court justices from career and non-career paths. So far, non-career Supreme Court justices who are often appointed at a younger age have a much longer term of office compared to Supreme Court justices from career paths who generally enter the MA at the age of nearly 60 years. "In the future, it must be the same, between career and non-career," he said. Responding to health issues that are often associated with age, both the DPR and MA are of the view that age is not an absolute benchmark. Lidya argues that judges who continue to be active will become wiser. Meanwhile, Yanto cited many former Supreme Court justices who remain energetic and productive even in their old age, showing that productivity is not always directly proportional to age. The Judge Position Bill was actually proposed by Commission III of the DPR since 2016 but its discussion was delayed. Now, the manuscript has been refined and is entering the stage of public aspiration absorption, marking a new chapter in efforts to reform and organize the judicial institutions in Indonesia.News source:Kompas.id