Article Sidebar

Submitted
July 7, 2025
Accepted
September 23, 2025
Published
September 24, 2025
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 42 Download : 26

Main Article Content

Abstract

The dual oversight of judges conducted internally by the Supreme Court and externally by the Judicial Commission has not yielded the expected results but has instead given rise to conflicts of interest between institutions that not only reduce the quality of oversight of judges, but also reduce the quality of judges. Therefore, it is important to examine the system of oversight of judges involving two independent state institutions within the scope of judicial power. The method used in this study is normative juridical with a statutory and conceptual approach. Research materials were collected through literature studies and analysed critically and systematically to reach conclusions. This study offers a solution for a collaborative system of oversight of judges in the form of a strategic alliance. The purpose of this study is to analyse two issues: (1) the urgency of a strategic alliance between the Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court in the oversight of judges; and (2) the strategic alliance model between the Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court in the oversight of judges. The results of this study found that the urgency of a strategic alliance is based on the fact that there is an institutional conflict which is a logical consequence of the dual oversight carried out by two independent institutions separately, the disharmony of laws and regulations governing the oversight of judges, and limited resources. The Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court should collaborate using a strategic alliance model to oversee judges, integrating the judicial oversight system without compromising their respective independence.

Keywords

Strategic Alliance Ethics Authority Judicial Oversight Judicial

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Mohammad Zamroni

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
Zamroni, M. (2025). Dekonstruksi Pengawasan Hakim Melalui Aliansi Strategis Komisi Yudisial dan Mahkamah Agung. Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM, 32(3), 581–606. https://doi.org/10.20885/iustum.vol32.iss3.art3
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

References

  1. Afrianedy, Ridho. “Sejarah Komisi Yudisial.” Pengadilan Agama Cilegon, 2025. https://www.pa-cilegon.go.id/artikel/256-sejarah-komisi-yudisial-09-08.

  2. Asshiddiqie, Jimly. Menggagas Peradilan Etik di Indonesia. Komisi Yudisial. Jakarta: Pusat Analisis dan Layanan Informasi Komisi Yudisial, 2015.

  3. Azizah, Faiqah Nur, Nur Kholifah, dan Athari Farhani. “Penguatan Etika Profesi hakim dalam Mewujudkan penegakan hukum yang Berkeadilan.” Jurnal Sosial dan Budaya Syar-i 10, no. 2 (2023): 661–82. https://doi.org/10.15408/sjsbs.v10i2.32137.

  4. Baidi, Ribut, dan Aji Mulyana. “Peran Hakim Memperkokoh Integritas Peradilan Sebagai Benteng Penegakan Hukum dan Keadaban Publik.” Jurnal Hukum Mimbar Justitia 10, no. 1 (2024): 101–16. https://doi.org/10.35194/jhmj.v10i1.4171.

  5. Bisnis. “Suap Peradilan: MA Bantah Tak Seriusi Rekomendasi KY.” Perpustakaan.mahkamahagung.go.id. Diakses 17 Juni 2025. https://perpustakaan.mahkamahagung.go.id/read/detailKliping/17326372.

  6. Black, Henry Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary. Diedit oleh Bryan A. Garner. Ninth Edit. St. Paul: Thomson Reuters, 2009.

  7. Burhanuddin. “Konsep Harminisasi Pengawasan Terhadap Hakim Oleh Komisi Yudisial dan Mahkamah Agung.” Jurnal Pilar Keadilan 3, no. 2 (2024): 1–11. https://ejurnal.stih-painan.ac.id/index.php/jpk/article/view/318.

  8. David, Bogdan. “Ethics and Judicial Integrity under the Bangalore Principles.” RAIS Journal for Social Sciences 7, no. 2 (2023): 50–54. https://journal.rais.education/index.php/raiss/article/view/195.

  9. Dewi, Ni Made Citra Kusuma. “Strategi Ekspansi PT. Garuda Indonesia Tbk melalui Kolaborasi Internasional dengan SkyTeam Airline Alliance.” Jurnal Hubungan Internasional XII, no. 1 (2019): 77–96. https://doi.org/10.20473/jhi.v12i1.12259.

  10. Fauzi, Achmad. “Bangkai Amoral di Balik Toga Hakim.” Jawa Pos. 16 April 2025.

  11. Fra CNN Indonesia. “29 Hakim Terjerat Korupsi 2011-2024, ICW Desak MA Berbenah Total,” 2015. https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20250416175323-12-1219532/29-hakim-terjerat-korupsi-2011-2024-icw-desak-ma-berbenah-total.

  12. Halima, dan Festi. “Tantangan Kewenangan KY dalam Pengawasan Hakim.” Komisi Yudisial. Diakses 18 Juni 2025. https://komisiyudisial.go.id/frontend/news_detail/15607/tantangan-kewenangan-ky-dalam-pengawasan-hakim .

  13. Handika, Rebi Fara. “Aliansi Strategis dan Kinerja Perusahaan: Perspektif Teori Institusional.” Jurnal Manajemen Strategi dan Simulasi Bisnis 1, no. 2 (2020): 83–90. https://doi.org/10.25077/mssb.1.2.83-90.2020.

  14. He, Qile, Maureen Meadows, Duncan Angwin, Emanuel Gomes, dan John Child. “Strategic Alliance Research in the Era of Digital Transformation: Perspectives on Future Research.” British Journal of Management 31, no. 3 (2020): 589–617. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12406.

  15. Ikhwan, Khairul, Clarisa Alfa Lionora, Ivo Novitaningtyas, dan Budi Rahardjo. “Keunggulan Bersaing, Aliansi Strategis, dan Manajemen Pengetahuan: Sebuah Kerangka Konseptual.” Jurnal Konsep Bisnis dan Manajemen 9, no. 1 (2022): 78–92. https://doi.org/10.31289/jkbm.v9i1.8317.

  16. Kafrawi, R.M., M. Zamroni, dan A.P. Marsal. “Harmonization Between Investigators And Advocates In The Law Enforcement Process.” Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan 11, no. 1 (2023). https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v11i1.1174.

  17. Kartikasari, Dina, dan Saiful Risky. “The Idea of Independent Judicial Ethics Courts in Indonesia.” Jurnal APHTN-HAN 4, no. 1 (2025): 65–84. https://doi.org/10.55292/japhtnhan.v4i1.156.

  18. Kinderis, Remigijus, dan Giedrius Jucevičius. “Strategic Alliances - Their Definition and Formation.” Sociālo zinātņu žurnāls 1, no. 5 (2013): 106–28. https://doi.org/10.17770/lner2013vol1.5.1155.

  19. Komisi Yudisial. “Laporan Kinerja Instansi Pemerintah 2024: Komisi Yudisial.” Jakarta, 2024.

  20. Lembaga Survei Indonesia. “Survei Nasional Kinerja Penegakan Hukum dan Pemberantasan Korupsi Dalam 100 Hari Pertama Pemerintahan Prabowo.” Jakarta, 2025. https://www.lsi.or.id/post/rilis-lsi-09-februari-2025.

  21. Lewis, D. Jordan. Partnerships for Profit: Structuring and Managing Strategic Alliances. New YorkThe Free Press, 1990.

  22. Mahkamah Agung. “Laporan Tahunan 2024: Mahkamah Agung.” Jakarta, 2024.

  23. Mahkamah Konstitusi. “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 005/PUU-IV/2006.” 2006.

  24. Matthyssens, Paul, Anita Van Gils, dan Michael R. Hyman. “Strategic Alliances in Perspective: A Management Process and Research Questions.” In Advances in Marketing, diedit oleh Sherrell, 89–97. Los Angeles: Advances in Marketing (SWMA Conference Proceedings), 1994. https://www.academia.edu/9933554/Strategic_alliances_in_perspective_A_management_process_and_research_questions.

  25. Noroyono, Bambang. “Begini Kronologis Terungkapnya Suap Hakim Tipikor Rp 60 Miliar.” Republika. Jakarta. Diakses 10 Juni 2025. https://news.republika.co.id/berita/sumug1393/begini-kronologis-terungkapnya-suap-hakim-tipikor-rp-60-miliar-part2.

  26. Nurohman, Taufik. “Dinamika Relasi Kelembagaan Antara Komisi Yudisial Dengan Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Pengawasan Hakim.” Jurnal Ilmu Politik dan Pemerintahan 1, no. 4 (2014): 476–95. https://doi.org/10.37058/jipp.v1i4.2272.

  27. Pellicelli, Anna Claudia. “Strategic Alliances.” Novara: EADI Workshop, 2003. https://doi.org/10.13132/2038-5498/2004.2.1-21a.

  28. Rafli, Muhammad, dan Kayus Kayowuan. “Etika Profesi hakim dalam Melaksanakan Tugas dan Tanggung Jawab dalam Penegakan Hukum.” Jurnal Ilmiah Multidisiplin 1, no. 11 (2023): 342–49. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10277425.

  29. Rasji, Charisse Evania Tansir, Silvia Evelyn, dan Rafael Christian Djaja. “Peran Komisi Yudisial dalam Menegakkan Kode Etik Hakim : Analisis Kasus Hakim DA.” Jurnal Hukum Lex Generalis 5, no. 10 (2024): 15. https://doi.org/10.56370/jhlg.v5i10.966.

  30. Rubiyanto. “Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial dalam Melakukan Tugas Pengawasan Terhadap Kinerja hakim di Lingkungan Pengadilan.” Hukum dan Dinamika Masyarakat 14, no. 2 (2017): 162–72. https://jurnal.untagsmg.ac.id/index.php/hdm/article/view/633.

  31. Rumadan, Ismail. “Membangun Hubungan Harmonis dalam Pelaksanaan Fungsi Pengawasan Hakim oleh Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial dalam Rangka Menegakkan Kehormatan, Keluhuran dan Martabat Hakim.” Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 5, no. 2 (2016): 209–26. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.5.2.2016.209-226.

  32. Sindy, Nurul Mutmainah Al Zahra, dan Neni Nurjanah. “Rekonstruksi Komisi Yudisial Sebagai upaya optimalisasi Penegakan Integritas kekuasaan Kehakiman.” Jurnal Studia Legalia : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 3, no. 2 (2022): 64–84. https://paperity.org/p/341851643/rekonstruksi-komisi-yudisial-sebagai-upaya-optimalisasi-penegakan-integritas-kekuasaan.

  33. Siyamtinah. “Aliansi Strategik: Faktor Pendorong dan Hambatannya.” Sultan Agung XLV, no. 119 (2009): 1–20. https://jurnal.unissula.ac.id/index.php/majalahilmiahsultanagung/article/view/17/13.

  34. Sujana, I Gede, I Made Sila, I Nengah Suastika, dan Rudi Ana Pali. “Keterbatasan Komisi Yudisial dalam Menjalankan Tugas dan Kewenangan Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945.” Indonesian Journal of Law Research 3, no. 1 (2025): 11–17. https://doi.org/10.60153/ijolares.v3i1.108.

  35. Suparman, Eman. “Korupsi Yudisial (Judicial Corruption) dan KKN di Indonesia.” Padjadjaran Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 1, no. 2 (2014): 209–27. https://doi.org/10.22304/pjih.v1n2.a1.

  36. Suparto. “Kedudukan dan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia dan Perbandingan dengan komisi Yudisial di Beberapa Negara Eropa.” Jurnal Hukum & Pembangunan 47, no. 4 (2017): 497–516. https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/jhp/vol47/iss4/6/.

  37. Talabas, Ari Sukady. “Kewenangan Mahkamah Agung dan Komisi Yudisial dalam Pengawasan Hakim.” Jurnal Media Hukum 9, no. 2 (2021): 96–106. https://ojs.untika.ac.id/index.php/jmh/article/view/436.

  38. Ulya, Zaki. “Dilematisasi Kelembagaan Antar Lembaga Kekuasaan Yudikatif Guna Mencapai Harmonisasi Hukum.” Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 10, no. 3 (2021): 337–60. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.10.3.2021.337-360.

  39. Victoria, Agatha Olivia. “Zarof Ricar akui pernah terima Rp50 miliar untuk urus perkara perdata.” Antaranews.com. Diakses 16 Juni 2025. https://www.antaranews.com/berita/4820041/zarof-ricar-akui-pernah-terima-rp50-miliar-untuk-urus-perkara-perdata.

  40. Wadji, Farid. “Hanya 15 Persen Rekomendasi Sanksi KY yang Ditindaklanjuti MA pada 2016-2018.” Komisi Yudisial. Diakses 17 Juni 2025. https://komisiyudisial.go.id/frontend/pers_release_detail/103/hanya-persen-rekomendasi-sanksi-ky-yang-ditindaklanjuti-ma-pada.

  41. Yunita, Fenny Tria, Abdul Basith Umami, Ahmad Alveyn Sulthony Ananda, dan Reni Putri Anggraeni. “Penguatan Kewenangan Komisi Yudisial Indonesia.” Jurnal Kajian Konstitusi 1, no. 1 (2021): 01–25. https://doi.org/10.19184/jkk.v1i1.23822.

  42. Zahoor, Nadia, Zaheer Khan, Jie Wu, Shlomo Y. Tarba, Francis Donbesuur, dan Huda Khan. “Vertical Alliances and Innovation: A Systematic Review of The Literature and a Future Research Agenda.” Technovation 122, no. 2023 (2023): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102588.

  43. Zamroni, M. Himpunan Teori Hukum & Konsep Hukum Untuk Penelitian Hukum. Surabaya: Scopindo Media Pustaka, 2024. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/390073794_HIMPUNAN_TEORI_HUKUM_KONSEP_HUKUM_UNTUK_PENELITIAN_HUKUM.

  44. ———. Penafsiran Hakim Dalam Sengketa Kontrak: Kajian Teori dan Praktik Pengadilan. Surabaya: Scopindo Media Pustaka, 2020.