Paradox of Personnel Management Between Judges and Non-Judges Within the Supreme Court of The Republic of Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59890/ijels.v4i5.12Keywords:
One Roof system, Judicial Independence, Judicial Civil Servants, Institutional MalfunctionAbstract
The one-stop system at the Supreme Court is a constitutional mandate to ensure judicial independence. However, in its implementation, a sharp staffing management paradox emerges between Judges as state officials and non-judge employees as Civil Servants (ASN). This study aims to analyze the juridical implications of the dualism in regulations between the Judiciary Power Law and the Civil Servants Law, as well as its impact on the effectiveness of the judicial organization. Using a normative-legal research method with a legislative and conceptual approach, this study dissects the phenomenon of institutional malfunction through Hans Kelsen's hierarchy of norms theory and Lon L. Fuller's law morality theory. The results indicate that there is a conflict of norms causing the Supreme Court to lose absolute autonomy over its supporting personnel due to the standardization of executive bureaucracy. Philosophically, if Judges are likened to the "soul" and non-judges to the "body" of the judiciary, The current management dualism has resulted in organic paralysis, where the "body" is unable to move in harmony with the technical needs of the judicial "soul." This difference in legal status triggers loyalty dissonance and welfare disparities that hinder professionalism. As a reconstructive solution, this study proposes the urgency of establishing a "Judicial Civil Servant" regime. This model requires the separation of judicial apparatus management from the general executive bureaucratic system under the independent authority of the Supreme Court. This reconstruction is crucial to realizing substantive judicial independence, wherein all supporting elements are specifically designed to serve the vision of law enforcement and justice, rather than merely meeting the administrative targets of the national bureaucracy.
References
Arsawati, Ni Nyoman Juwita, M SH, I Putu Edi Rusmana, and M H SH. Sistem Peradilan Pidana, Perspektif KUHP Nasional Dan Keadilan Restoratif. Nilacakra, 2026.
Asshiddiqie, Jimly, and Muchamad Ali Safa’at. Teori Hans Kelsen Tentang Hukum. Mahkamah Konstitusi RI, Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kenpaniteraan, 2006.
Chaidir, Ellydar, M Husnu Abadi, Suparto Suparto, Arifin Bur, Efendi Ibnususilo, Wira Wira, Ummi Muslikah, and Aryo Akbar. Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia. Rajawali Pers, 2020.
Fuller, Lon L. Positivism and Fidelity to Law--A Reply to Professor Hart. Harv. L. Rev. Vol. 71. HeinOnline, 1957.
Ginting, Lilawati, Onny Medaline, and Rizka Syafriana. “Principle of Freedom of Contract in the Perspective of Western Civil Law and Sharia Law.” In Proceeding International Seminar of Islamic Studies, 50–58, 2025.
Hantoro, Novianto Murti, Monika Suhayati, Denico Doly, Prianter Jaya Hairi, and Harris Yonatan Parmahan Sibuea. Hakim: Antara Pengaturan Dan Implementasinya. Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia, 2018.
Hanum, Eva Latifah. “Dualisme Kedudukan Jabatan Hakim Di Indonesia (Analisis Undang-Undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman Dan Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2014 Tentang Aparatur Sipil Negara).” Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum UIN Syarif HIdayatullah Jakarta, 2021.
Hart, Herbert Lionel Adolphus. Law, Liberty, and Morality. Stanford University Press, 1963.
Lubis, Andi Hakim, Junaidi Lubis, and Said Rizal. “Optimalisasi Pengawasan Dan Pembinaan Hakim Menuju Kekuasaan Kehakiman Yang Berintegritas Dan Bermartabat.” Ilmu Hukum Prima (IHP) 5, no. 1 (2022): 12–24.
Nurdin, H Boy. Kedudukan Dan Fungsi Hakim Dalam Penegakan Hukum Di Indonesia. Penerbit Alumni, 2021.
Pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Undang-undang (UU) Nomor 20 Tahun 2023 tentang Aparatur Sipil Negara (2023). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/269470/uu-no-20-tahun-2023.
———. Undang-undang (UU) Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman (2009). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/38793/uu-no-48-tahun-2009.
Qamar, Nurul, and Farah Syah Rezah. Metode Penelitian Hukum: Doktrinal Dan Non-Doktrinal. Makasar: CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn), 2020.
Qamar, Nurul, Muhammad Syarif, Dachran S Busthami, M Kamal Hidjaz, Aan Aswari, Hardianto Djanggih, and Farah Syah Rezah. Metode Penelitian Hukum (Legal Research Methods). CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn), 2017.
Rohmanto, Ahmad, Syamsir Syamsir, A Zarkasi, Hartati Hartati, and Dony Yusra Pebrianto. “Pengenaan Sanksi Administrasi Dalam Penegakan Disiplin Aparatur Sipil Negara Dalam Perspektif Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Indonesia.” Universitas Jambi, 2025.
Soekanto, Soerjono. “Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat,” 2007.
Sonata, Depri Liber. “Metode Penelitian Hukum Normatif Dan Empiris: Karakteristik Khas Dari Metode Meneliti Hukum.” Fiat Justisia Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 8, no. 1 (2014): 15–35.
Sudrajat, Tedi. Hukum Birokrasi Pemerintah: Kewenangan Dan Jabatan. Sinar Grafika, 2022.
