PROBLEMATIKA KEWENANGAN KOMISI YUDISIAL DALAM PENGAWASAN HAKIM AGUNG DI INDONESIA

The Judicial Commission (KY) is the only state institution stipulated in the 1945 Constitution precisely in Article 24B of the 1945 Constitution. Where KY is an external supervisor who is in charge and has preventive authority. One of the amendments to the 1945 Constitution is the creation of an accountable system of administering judicial power with the establishment of a new institution called KY. This commission is certainly a part of efforts to improve judicial institutions which are always expected to maintain independence and accountability in upholding law and justice in Indonesia. in order to realize these noble ideals while at the same time supporting the validity of KY institutions, the enactment of Law No. 22 Year 2004 which is now Law No. 18 of 2011 concerning the Judicial Commission. The presence of KY has not been able to immediately solve the existing problems, especially in the supervision of the Chief Justice, nowadays the institution of the implementation of judicial power which is owned by Indonesia with all of its authorities has not been able to carry out the task to the fullest. There is a problem that is the public report that supports supervision by the Judicial Commission is not effective with a KY recommendation that was not followed up by the Supreme Court and certainly also hindered KY's authority in the field of supervision after the Constitutional Court's decision. No. 005 / PUU-IV / 2006. By looking at the problem above, the constituents are interested in examining how the ideal KY authority is in supervising the Chief Justice. In examining the above problems, the author uses normative research methods, which are descriptive-analytic. Namely by describing the main problems that arise in the authority possessed by KY whether or not it has been in accordance with the 1945 Constitution or not and regarding the supervision of the Judicial Commission has been Ideal or not. Through the results of the analysis found, namely the authority that is in the KY institution is very important to maintain the legal order in the State of Indonesia to be good. Indeed, the supervision carried out by KY caused confusion in resolving existing cases. Because what we know is that MA also intervened in resolving existing cases. Similarly, in terms of differences in case elements, the problems that occur in the field are the lack of clarity regarding violations of the Code of Ethics and judicial techniques, which creates a difference in interpretation between the MA and KY. In addition there are problems such as the lack of human resources in the KY itself, so that cases that should have been resolved cannot be resolved due to lack of these, this is also equivalent to the lack of 3 aspects namely Constitutional aspects, Functional Aspects and Financial Aspects in KY institutions in Indonesia. regarding the problems described, it can certainly lead to a legal vacuum in the State of Indonesia in judging the troubled Supreme Judge