 |
| Sholahuddin Al Fatih, S.H., M.H. who successfully won the best article in the 1st Sharia Writing Competition 2024 event (Photo: Special) |
Proud news again came from the academic community of the University of Muhammadiyah Malang (UMM). He is Sholahuddin Al Fatih, S.H., M.H., who successfully won the best article in the 1st Sharia Writing Competition 2024 event in Palangkaraya in early May. It cannot be separated from his interesting idea related to the general election to elect the judges of the Constitutional Court in Indonesia.
“Alhamdulillah, I am happy with this achievement. However, this achievement is also proof that UMM students and staff are not the only ones who have achievements, but the lecturers must also make achievements. A teacher must be responsible and can be modeled, hopefully it will be an inspiration for the entire academic community, “said Fatih.
Fatih writes about the direct election of Constitutional Court judges by the people because he sees the current model of selecting Constitutional Court judges as less accountable and less transparent. The nine-judge model adopted by Indonesia imitates Korean representatives. Each of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches elects three judges. It also opens up the possibility of a conflict of interest.
Read more: UMM Lecturer: Online Gambling Could Face Serious Criminal Charges
“There was a former legislator who became a Constitutional Court judge yesterday. There were also Constitutional Court judges who stumbled over several cases, from ethical to criminal. Now we want to try to initiate a direct election. Indeed, the disadvantage is the high cost, but it can legitimize to the people that the elected Constitutional Court Judge is truly chosen and supported by the people,” he added.
The direct election of the Constitutional Court Judge is modeled after a general election, involving the people as the owners of the votes. The idea is in line with the slogan of democracy, 'from the people, by the people, and for the people'. Furthermore, Fatih hopes that this idea can become a topic of discussion and be re-examined by other academics, so it can be an input for the improvement of the Constitutional Court institution in the future.
Furthermore, the law faculty lecturer explained that this method does not guarantee the best human resources. However, this makes the selection of MK judges more transparent and accountable so that the public can know and not be prejudiced. “Actually, direct election of Constitutional Court judges has been used in several states in America and is not selected from other institutions. So it is more transparent and does not cause a lot of prejudice,” he said.
Read more: Bring up the Issue of Child Education, UMM Students Win the National Essay Competition
Fatih also explained that, besides being costly, this model also allows disputes to emerge. Moreover, elections are synonymous with disputes. Even so, there is already an institution that has the task of examining and monitoring the performance of judges, namely the judicial commission. In addition, this idea is also deemed unworkable due to the absence of governing regulations. It could also be through government regulations, presidential regulations, or even Constitutional Court regulations.
“There is no regulation that can accommodate this model. But the Constitutional Court law can be amended and further regulated. There is actually potential in the article that 'the election of the Constitutional Court is organized democratically, accountably, and transparently'. Unfortunately, our understanding so far is that Constitutional Court judges are only elected by the legislature, executive, and judiciary. Even though the phrase can also be understood using the general election model,” he ended. (*wil/put)
