Urgensi Rekonstruksi Seleksi Hakim Mahkamah Konstitusi melalui Substantive Involvement dan Duty to Give Reasons: Pendekatan Akuntabilitas Substantif dalam Reformasi Sistem Rekrutmen Hakim Konstitusi di Indonesia

Kevin Verrel Nurreyhan (Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum UIN Walisongo Semarang)
Rosfanny Delia Leghitta Ayu (Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum UIN Walisongo Semarang)
Dhea Putri Anjelita (Fakultas Syariah dan Hukum UIN Walisongo Semarang)

Forschungsforum Law Journal
Vol 3 No 02 (2026): MEI

The author's research analyzes the crisis of independence of the Constitutional Court (MK) stemming from the judicial recruitment system through a three-door mechanism that is inconsistent and lacks transparency. The phenomenon of "pseudo-independence" indicates that formal guarantees of independence are not always accompanied by substantive independence in judicial decision-making practice. Although the three-door system is designed to realize checks and balances, its implementation practice shows that selection mechanisms at each proposing institution (Parliament, President, and Supreme Court) tend to be laden with sectoral interests, minimized transparency, and weak public accountability. This research employs a normative juridical approach enriched with a socio-legal analytical framework to analyze relevant legislation, recruitment practices, and court decisions. Through qualitative descriptive-analytical analysis, this research identifies fundamental problems in the recruitment system and formulates prescriptive solutions. The research results propose reconstructing the constitutional judge recruitment system through three main mechanisms: first, establishing a multi-stakeholder pre-selection panel involving representatives of state institutions and civil society as a filter mechanism to ensure clear and uniform accountability standards; second, implementing Substantive Involvement Test (SIT) as an instrument for in-depth candidate assessment, encompassing investigation of political affiliation records, ethical and judgment evaluation, and statesman assessment; third, strengthening the duty to give reasons principle as an obligation for proposing institutions to provide rational justification when selecting candidates outside the panel's recommendation. The Transitional Accountability approach through the Prospective Ethical Scrutiny model is offered to balance institutional stability and ethical accountability. This reform is designed in an evolutionary and integrated manner to continuously improve the quality of the MK's integrity.