On September 26, 2024, there was a media release which essentially announce that judges in Indonesia will take leave collectively on October 7-11, 2024. This action was motivated by the tension among Indonesian judges over the many problems they are facing, from the amount of judges’ salary which have never been adjusted for 12 years since the enactment of Government Regulation No. 94 of 2012 (GR 94/2012), official residences that have not been provided, to the issue of safety and security of judges in carrying out their duties. With these conditions, the judges demand relevant parties to take immediate action in order to fulfil their rights, including by urging the government to immediately adjust the amount of judges’ salary by revising GR 94/2012 and to issue regulations which can guarantee the safety and security of judges, as well as by encouraging various parties, especially the Supreme Court, the Judicial Commission, and the IKAHI (Indonesian Judges Association) to actively push for the changes that are being called for.

In response to the situation, we, the Indonesian Institute for Independent Judiciary (Lembaga Kajian dan Advokasi Independensi Peradilan/LeIP), assert as follows:

1. We observe that the judges’ appeal is not about certain amount of judges’ salary, but rather a fulfilment of financial rights and welfare of judges which have never been adjusted to current economic conditions for 12 years. This is noticeably different when we see posts other than judges who enjoy periodic adjustments to their financial rights every year. Although GR 94/2012 has been amended twice (namely through GR No. 74 of 2016 and GR No. 40 of 2022), these amendments do not provide for adjustments and improvements to the welfare of judges so that they have not brought positive impact for judges. In fact, we must certainly agree that economic conditions and value of money in 2012 were far different from today’s situation considering yearly inflations. Thus, it is almost certain that the value of judges’ salary in 2012 is no longer compatible with current economic conditions which at the end impacting the welfare of judges and their families;
2. The absence of adjustment over judges’ financial rights basically stems from the lack of provisions related to the evaluation and periodic adjustment mechanism of judges’ salary. Without these provisions, we believe that there will be no guarantee that judges’ salary will be readjusted regularly to the factual economic conditions, workload, and other indicators which need to be taken into account in determining judges’ salary. Article 3 para. (2) of GR 94/2012 in conjunction with GR No. 74 of 2016 has indeed stated that the provisions for judges’ salary would still follow the provisions of civil servant officials’ salary even though judges have been no longer considered as civil servant officials since the enactment of Law No. 43 of 1999. However, as explained previously, periodic adjustments to civil servant officials’ salary have also not affected the amount of judges’ salary. In fact, equalizing the salary provisions for judges with civil servant officials is already problematic because judges are no longer civil servant officials, so the state need to have separate salary provisions for judges;
3. The existence of a regulation which can guarantee periodic adjustments to judges’ salary is also needed to prevent the same protests from happening again in the future. It should be noted that protest in relation to fulfilment of welfare rights is not the first time being conducted by judges. Similar protest had been organized in 2010-2011, which became one of the forerunners of issuance of GR 94/2012. However, it is very unfortunate that the occasion was only used as a short-term solution to meet the demands for improving the judges’ welfare at that time without being followed by other necessary actions, such as regulating the evaluation and adjustment mechanism of judges’ salary. Reflecting on that, it is likely that the same protest will reappear in the next 7-10 years considering that the main problem in fulfilling the judges’ welfare has not been resolved;
4. In addition to welfare issues, guaranteeing safety and security of judges in performance of their duties also needs immediate attention from the state. This is following various incidents which have threatened the security and safety of judges – even resulting in the death of judges – and have disrupted the implementation of their duties. These are happening even though guarantee over the safety and security of judges have been regulated in various Indonesian laws and regulations. The murder of Supreme Court Justice Syafiudin Kartasasmita (2001), the murder of a Sidoarjo Islamic Court judge in the courtroom (2005), and the beating of a Central Jakarta District Court judge (2019) are only few of the incidents which illustrate how vulnerable the safety and security of judges are. In fact, such security guarantees are very much needed to ensure the independence and impartiality of judges in examining cases which are important requirements in fulfilling a fair trial (Article 2 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary);
5. For us, these conditions show the state’s lack of seriousness in fulfilling the needs of judges. Indeed, guaranteeing welfare and security is part of important requirements for fostering judicial independence and the state is the main party which must take responsibility for providing adequate resources and support for judges and courts so that they can perform their duties properly (Article 7 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary), especially in creating a fair and dignified judiciary. Moreover, the Basic Principles of Judicial Independence regulate that welfare guarantee in the form of providing appropriate remuneration in laws and regulations is an important component in actualizing judicial independence (Article 11 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary);
6. For that reason, the issue of fulfilment of welfare and security of Judges needs to be given serious attention and be followed up by the state. This certainly needs to be done not only by the Supreme Court as an institution which administers employment of judges and the Judicial Commission which works for the integrity of judicial institution, but also by the government, especially through the Ministry of Finance, and the House of Representatives which needs to immediately take actions in resolving those issues. The absence of real actions on those issues will not only show the state’s lack of seriousness in fulfilling the rights of judges, but also the state’s indifference in guaranteeing a fair, impartial, and independent judiciary for the people;
7. Specifically for the Supreme Court, we still believe that the Supreme Court is an element of the state that always strive to fulfil human rights principles in carrying out its duties. Moreover, the Chief Justice in his speech at an event related to human rights has demanded judges to implement human rights principles in examining and making decisions over cases. For that, we encourage the Supreme Court to do the same this time by respecting the rights to freedom of expression and association of the judges who are taking the collective leave, which is basically an important part of actualizing the principle of judicial independence (Article 8 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary). We also urge the Supreme Court to provide space for the judges to voice their opinions and to view this movement as an effort to build the credibility of judicial institution.

Based on the aforementioned explanation, we declare the following points:

1. Urging the government to immediately adjust the welfare rights of judges in accordance with existing economic conditions and needs by revising the provisions on judges’ salary in GR 94/2012;
2. Encouraging the state through the government, the House of Representatives, the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Commission to formulate provisions regulating the mechanism for periodic evaluation and adjustment of judges’ welfare which will be able to better guarantees the welfare rights of judges;
3. Encouraging the state’s commitment through the government and the Supreme Court to fulfil the safety and security guarantees for judges as regulated in laws and regulations;
4. Urging the Supreme Court to respect the right to freedom of expression and association of the judges who carry out the collective leave protest in accordance with Article 8 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary.

Contact Person:

1. Muhammad Tanziel Aziezi (Executive Director of LeIP), +6282260015253; tanziel.aziezi@leip.or.id
2. Raynov Tumorang Pamintori (Program Manager of LeIP), +628567875951; raynov@leip.or.id