Konstruksi Relasi Kesejahteraan Hakim Dengan Kualitas Kinerja Yudisial Yang Berkeadilan

Fifit Fitri Lutfianingsih; Jonaedi Efendi

doi:10.25216/ikahi.2.3.12.2024.305-324

Authors

Fifit Fitri Lutfianingsih Affiliation: Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya, Indonesia
Jonaedi Efendi Affiliation: Universitas Bhayangkara Surabaya, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25216/ikahi.2.3.12.2024.305-324

Keywords:

Kualitas Putusan, Kesejahteraan Hakim, Keadilan

Abstract

The relationship between the welfare of judges and the quality of decisions is an interesting legal issue. Besides theoretically not many have discussed it, empirically this topic has become a massive discussion, especially among judges. This article is one of the important and original contributions to fill the void of research related to the relationship between judge welfare and the quality of decisions. The research is based on three problem formulations 1) How do judges view their current and expected salaries? 2) How is the relationship and influence between judges' welfare and the quality of decisions? 3) How is the construction of the relationship between judges' welfare and the quality of justice decisions? This research is included in empirical legal research with a socio legal approach. The technique of collecting legal materials and data was obtained by in-depth interviews with respondents who had been determined by purposive sampling technique. The findings of the study resulted in; First, the welfare of judges is still relatively lacking, this is seen in terms of professional responsibilities and workload as well as from several comparisons of judges' salaries in several countries. Second, there is an indirect relationship between judges' welfare and the quality of decisions and the relationship between the two has a positive effect. Third, the construction of a positive relationship between judges' welfare and the quality of decisions. This is legitimised theoretically from the perspective of both economic theory and legal realism. Empirically, it is concluded that although the welfare of judges is not an instrument to produce just decisions, empirically the welfare of judges is a necessity.

References

Agung, Mahkamah. Putusan Mahkamah Agung 23 P/HUM/2018, 2018.

Aletras, Nikolaos, Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis, Daniel Preoţiuc-Pietro, and Vasileios Lampos. “Predicting Judicial Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: A Natural Language Processing Perspective.” PeerJ Computer Science 2 (October 24, 2016): e93. https://peerj.com/articles/cs-93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.93

Alkostar, Artidjo. “Tantangan Hakim Dalam Era Globalisasi.” Varia peradilan 270 (2008).

Anderson, James M., and Eric Heiland. “How Much Should Judges Be Paid? An Empirical Study on the Effect of Judicial Pay on the State Bench.” Stanford Law Review 64, no. 5 (2012): 1277–1341.

Baker, Scott. “Should We Pay Federal Circuit Judges More?” Boston University Law Review 88, no. 63 (2008): 63–112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.998395

Banasik, Przemysław, Katarzyna Metelska-Szaniawska, Małgorzata Godlewska, and Sylwia Morawska. “Determinants of Judges’ Career Choices and Productivity: A Polish Case Study.” European Journal of Law and Economics 53, no. 1 (February 2022): 81–107. https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10657-021-09688-4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-021-09688-4

Barry, Brian M. How Judges Judge. Informa Law from Routledge, 2020. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780429659935. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429023422

Capurso, Timothy J, and Benjamin N Cardozo. “How Judges Judge: Theories on Judicial Decision Making.” University of Baltimore Law Forum 29, no. 1 (1998). http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf%0Ahttp://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol29/iss1/2.

Chen, Daniel L. “Judicial Analytics and the Great Transformation of American Law.” Artificial Intelligence and Law 27, no. 1 (March 10, 2019): 15–42. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10506-018-9237-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-018-9237-x

Chen, Daniel L., Tobias J. Moskowitz, and Kelly Shue. “Decision Making Under the Gambler’s Fallacy: Evidence from Asylum Judges, Loan Officers, and Baseball Umpires *.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 131, no. 3 (August 1, 2016): 1181–1242. https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/131/3/1181/2590011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw017

Choi, Stephen J., G. Mitu Gulati, and Eric A. Posner. “Are Judges Overpaid?: A Skeptical Response to the Judicial Salary Debate.” Journal of Legal Analysis 1, no. 1 (January 1, 2009): 47–117. http://academic.oup.com/jla/article/1/1/47/889029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/jla.v1i1.3

Deyneli, Fatih. “Analysis of Relationship between Efficiency of Justice Services and Salaries of Judges with Two-Stage DEA Method.” European Journal of Law and Economics 34, no. 3 (December 10, 2012): 477–493. http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10657-011-9258-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-011-9258-3

Efendi, Dr. Jonaedi, and Prof. Dr. Johnny Ibrahim. Metode Penelitian Hukum: Normatif Dan Empiris. Cet.2. Depok: Prenada Media Group, 2018.

Haines, Charles Grove. “General Observations on the Effects of Personal Political and Economic Influences in the Decisions of Judges.” Illnois Law Review 17, no. 2 (1996): 96–116.

Indonesia, Ikatan Hakim. Susun RPJMN 2025-2029, Kementerian PPN/BAPPENAS Gelar FGD Tentang Kesejahteraan Hakim, 2024. https://ikahi.or.id/berita/susun-rpjmn-2025-2029--kementerian-ppn-bappenas-gelar-fgd-tentang-kesejahteraan-hakim.

Indonesia, Pemerintah Pusat. Peraturan Pemerintah (PP) Nomor 94 Tahun 2012 Tentang Hak Keuangan Dan Fasilitas Hakim Yang Berada Di Bawah Mahkamah Agung, 2012.

Indonesia, Sekretaris Mahkamah Agung Republik. Keputusan Sekretaris Mahkamah Agung No. 1068/Sek/SK/XII/2019 Tentang Standar Biaya Rumah Dinas Dan Transportasi Hakim Bagi Hakim Dan Hakim AD HOC Dilingkungan Mahkamah Agung Dan Badan Peradilan Yang Berada Dibawahnya Tahun Anggaran 2020-2022, 2019.

Marks, Stephen. “A Comment on the Relationship between Judicial Salary and Judicial Quality.” Boston University Law Review 88, no. 3 (2008): 843–853.

Polhukam, Kemenko. Rekomendasi Agenda Prioritas Percepatan Reformasi Hukum: Laporan Tim Percepatan Reformasi Hukum, 2023.

Rahardjo, Satjipto. Penegakan Hukum: Suatu Tinjauan Sosiologis. Cet.1. Yogyakarta: Genta publishing, 2009.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Oxford University Press, 1999.

Rizki, Mochamad Januar. Mengurai Problem Kesejahteraan Hakim Yang Masih Jauh Dari Ideal, 2024. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/mengurai-problem-kesejahteraan-hakim-yang-masih-jauh-dari-ideal-lt65c9f079453b0/.

Somantri, Gumilar Rusliwa. “Memahami Metode Kualitatif.” Makara Human Behavior Studies in Asia 9, no. 2 (December 1, 2005): 57. https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/hubsasia/vol9/iss2/8/. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7454/mssh.v9i2.122

Supandi. “Lembaga Peradilan, Kualitas Profesionalisme Dalam Proses Pembaruan Dan Konsekuensi Terhadap Pencederaan Etika Profesi.” Varia Peradilan Majalah Hukum, 2010.

Tampubolon, Manotar, Tomson Situmeang, and Paltiada Saragih. “Judicial Breakfast as an External Factor in Judicial Decision Making in Courts.” F1000Research 12 (January 4, 2023): 9. https://f1000research.com/articles/12-9/v1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.126482.1

Yudho, Winarno. Sosok Guru Dan Ilmuwan Yang Kritis Dan Konsisten: Kumpulan Tulisan Peringatan 70 Tahun Prof. Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto. Jakarta: ELSAM, 2002.