Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Robert Sidauruk, Agus Sahbani
Judicial review hearings at the Constitutional Court have become the most favored process for legal practitioners. With proper transparency and immediate updates, applicants in judicial review cases, related stakeholders, and even every day citizens that are curious about a judicial review can access anything they need. The proceeding itself is, of course, open to the public.Such practices, however, are not imitated by the Supreme Court, a long-established judicial institution, which dates back to decades before the formation of the Constitutional Court. At the Supreme Court, judicial review proceedings are very different to the Constitutional Court. A lack of transparency and delayed updates are just a few of the problems.
Labor activists are now trying to address this matter. They are questioning the general veil of secrecy over judicial review hearings at the Supreme Court. They contend that they are unable to attend a trial nor present experts and witnesses, yet when a judge delivers a decision the words “the decision is rendered in a public trial” are used.
The Supreme Court denies that secret trial practices are conducted when reviewing regulations below the level of a law with its officials explaining that judicial review by the Supreme Court is administrative in nature and does not require experts or witnesses.
“Judicial review at the Supreme Court emphasizes the administrative examination of the subject matter as it only deals with rationale derived from laws and regulations with reference to applicable literature,” said Ridwan Mansyur from the Legal and Public Relations Bureau at the Supreme Court on Friday in Jakarta.
Besides being administrative in nature, Mr. Mansyur also explained that the limited number of court rooms to hold hearings that can be attended by public is another reason. While the decision always states the hearing is open to the public, Mr. Mansyur said that this does not necessarily mean parties to the hearing must be present before the court. In fact, the parties are welcome to meet judges during judge meeting times.
Furthermore, Mr. Manysur informed that there are times when the Supreme Court judges it necessary to call experts or witnesses to the judicial hearing process. This measure, however, is only conducted in certain cases depending on the subject matter of the case. For example, the Supreme Court once summoned Akbar Tanjung, a senior politician of the Golkar Party, as a witness.
“During the examination of the witness we were used the Kusuma Atmaja building at the Supreme Court complex as the court room to handle the large number of spectators,” said Mr. Mansyur.
Erwin Natosmal Oemar, a researcher at Indonesia Legal Roundtable, however, rejects the argument that judicial review at the Supreme Court is an administrative process. According to him, matters that are reviewed at the Supreme Court have a significant impact on the society. As a consequence, society must be able to access information about all stages of proceedings at the Supreme Court.
“During judicial review proceedings, the Supreme Court examines the implications of certain regulations. Hence, the perspective of experts or victims is necessary to assess the implications of the regulations,” said Mr. Oemar.
Moreover, Mr. Oemar believes that the secret trial approach of the Supreme Court conflicts the public’s right to access information and violates the transparency and accountability principle. He also asserts that the Supreme Court should not blame limited facilities for hampering the public’s access to justice.
“To accommodate the rights of the public, the Supreme Court has to acknowledge the public’s right to information including the right to know about judicial review hearings at the Supreme Court,” said Mr. Oemar.
(hot/kc)
Robert Sidauruk, Agus Sahbani
Judicial review hearings at the Constitutional Court have become the most favored process for legal practitioners. With proper transparency and immediate updates, applicants in judicial review cases, related stakeholders, and even every day citizens that are curious about a judicial review can access anything they need. The proceeding itself is, of course, open to the public.Such practices, however, are not imitated by the Supreme Court, a long-established judicial institution, which dates back to decades before the formation of the Constitutional Court. At the Supreme Court, judicial review proceedings are very different to the Constitutional Court. A lack of transparency and delayed updates are just a few of the problems.
Labor activists are now trying to address this matter. They are questioning the general veil of secrecy over judicial review hearings at the Supreme Court. They contend that they are unable to attend a trial nor present experts and witnesses, yet when a judge delivers a decision the words “the decision is rendered in a public trial” are used.
The Supreme Court denies that secret trial practices are conducted when reviewing regulations below the level of a law with its officials explaining that judicial review by the Supreme Court is administrative in nature and does not require experts or witnesses.
“Judicial review at the Supreme Court emphasizes the administrative examination of the subject matter as it only deals with rationale derived from laws and regulations with reference to applicable literature,” said Ridwan Mansyur from the Legal and Public Relations Bureau at the Supreme Court on Friday in Jakarta.
Besides being administrative in nature, Mr. Mansyur also explained that the limited number of court rooms to hold hearings that can be attended by public is another reason. While the decision always states the hearing is open to the public, Mr. Mansyur said that this does not necessarily mean parties to the hearing must be present before the court. In fact, the parties are welcome to meet judges during judge meeting times.
Furthermore, Mr. Manysur informed that there are times when the Supreme Court judges it necessary to call experts or witnesses to the judicial hearing process. This measure, however, is only conducted in certain cases depending on the subject matter of the case. For example, the Supreme Court once summoned Akbar Tanjung, a senior politician of the Golkar Party, as a witness.
“During the examination of the witness we were used the Kusuma Atmaja building at the Supreme Court complex as the court room to handle the large number of spectators,” said Mr. Mansyur.
Erwin Natosmal Oemar, a researcher at Indonesia Legal Roundtable, however, rejects the argument that judicial review at the Supreme Court is an administrative process. According to him, matters that are reviewed at the Supreme Court have a significant impact on the society. As a consequence, society must be able to access information about all stages of proceedings at the Supreme Court.
“During judicial review proceedings, the Supreme Court examines the implications of certain regulations. Hence, the perspective of experts or victims is necessary to assess the implications of the regulations,” said Mr. Oemar.
Moreover, Mr. Oemar believes that the secret trial approach of the Supreme Court conflicts the public’s right to access information and violates the transparency and accountability principle. He also asserts that the Supreme Court should not blame limited facilities for hampering the public’s access to justice.
“To accommodate the rights of the public, the Supreme Court has to acknowledge the public’s right to information including the right to know about judicial review hearings at the Supreme Court,” said Mr. Oemar.
(hot/kc)