Legal Literacy - A new discourse regarding the term of office for officials in state institutions has resurfaced. After previously extending the retirement age for high-ranking TNI officers and similar proposals being made for State Civil Apparatus (ASN), the spotlight is now shifting to the heart of judicial power. The Expert Body of the House of Representatives (DPR) is currently formulating a Draft Law (RUU) on the Position of Judge, one of the main substances of which is to change the term of office scheme for Supreme Court justices. Based on the initial draft obtained, this Bill proposes a significant new norm. Article 62 Paragraph (1) letter b in the draft stipulates that the Chair, Deputy Chair, Chamber Chair of the Supreme Court (MA), and Supreme Court justices will be honorably discharged after serving for a maximum of 15 years. However, there is an option to extend the term of office for one period of five years. This is a fundamental change from the current provisions in Law Number 3 of 2009 concerning the MA, which only bases the dismissal of Supreme Court justices on the retirement age limit, which is 70 years. Responding to potential debates, the Acting Head of the DPR Expert Body, Lidya Suryani Widayati, confirmed that the clause is being refined. She dismissed concerns that the extension of the term of office would be automatic. According to her, the extension will be tied to certain conditions, where the health condition of the Supreme Court justice is one of the main criteria. "So, there are requirements... If he meets the requirements, then it can be extended," Lidya emphasized.

Juridical Rationality and Aspirations Behind the Changes

Juridically, Lidya explained that the preparation of this Bill is a follow-up to the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) which states that judges are state officials. The Constitutional Court's decision, in accordance with the mandate of Article 10 of Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Establishment of Legislation, needs to be further regulated in a law. In addition, this Bill also considers President Prabowo Subianto's idea regarding the position of judge for life. However, aspirations from the judges themselves tend to reject this idea due to humanitarian considerations and the need for a private life outside the profession. To ensure legal certainty and avoid losses for incumbent Supreme Court justices, this Bill has designed transitional provisions. Lidya gave an example, a Supreme Court justice who was appointed at a relatively young age before this Law came into effect, will be given a choice: complete a 15-year term in accordance with the new rules, or continue to serve until reaching the retirement age of 70 years. This mechanism is designed to protect the existing rights of judges (existing). On the other hand, this Bill also opens up a more inclusive recruitment discourse, not only for Civil Servant Candidates (CPNS) but also providing opportunities for the military (TNI) to become judges, as long as they meet the established qualifications.

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