•    HOME   
•    NEWS   
•    BUSINESS   
•    INTERNATIONAL   
•    TECH   
•    SPORTS   
•    LIFE & TIMES   
•    OPINION   
•    MY JAKARTA   
•    BLOGS   
•    EYEWITNESS   

Potentially further straining tensions between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission, the country’s top court announced on Tuesday that it had unilaterally discarded a code of ethics for judges on which it had jointly agreed with the commission.

“They don’t apply anymore,” the verdict posted on the court’s Web site said, referring to the code of ethics.

A group of attorneys had filed a review against two articles of the code, those requiring judges to have high discipline and to be professional. But the court ended up annulling eight points that included a requirement for judges not to neglect facts. 

The court decided that Article 8 points 1 to 4 and Article 10 points 1 to 4 of the 2011 joint decree on the judges’ codes of ethics violated the 2010 law on judges’ power and authority. 

The justices agreed that the joint decree had limited the independence of judges as they could not freely make rulings.

It was not immediately clear, however, what the relation was between requiring judges to have high discipline and professionalism with the possibility of impeding their independence in making rulings.

The Judicial Commission immediately expressed its deep disappointment on the verdict. 

“We made the code of ethics decree together. Now, they unilaterally annulled it without asking experts’ opinions or related parties,” commission deputy chief Imam Anshori Saleh said.

Speculation has emerged that the justices were angry after the commission publicly asked for sanctions against the judges handling a murder case implicating former graft czar Antasari Azhar. The judges allegedly neglected facts presented during the trial.

The commission demanded the judges be banned from handling cases for six months.

On Monday, the court said it had rejected Antasari’s demand for a case review on the grounds that the judges in his trial ignored key evidence and testimony. It was his last avenue of appeal.

Antasari, the former chairman of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), was convicted in 2010 for ordering the murder of businessman Nasrudin Zulkarnaen and was sentenced to 18 years in prison.

The rejection was also criticized by Jimly Asshiddiqie, the former Constitutional Court chief justice, who said the trial was “rotten” from the beginning.

The Judicial Commission, which paved the way for the case review with its findings of irregular conduct by the judges in the initial trial, said the ruling was not unexpected, adding that the justice who rejected its recommendation was Harifin Tumpa, the same justice who had rejected Antasari’s review demand.

Harifin was the Supreme Court chief justice until his retirement last week.

Relations between the court and the commission have remained tense since the latter’ establishment in 2005.

The Supreme Court has openly said that the commission was a threat to judges’ authority, and it has sought and obtained a curb on the commission’s powers.

The Constitutional Court has ruled in a case filed by the Supreme Court that the commission could only recommend that the court take actions if it suspected something was wrong with judges.  In most cases, the court ignores the recommendations.

The Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI) slammed the decision to discard the code of ethics, saying it showed the arrogance of justices who lacked any respect for other institutions.

Justice-turned-lawyer Henry P. Panggabean and three of his colleagues had filed the review.