<![CDATA[This article presents a critical and comparative analysis of the fit and proper test conducted by the Indonesian House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR) for candidates of Supreme Court justices. The study argues that the DPR systematically exceeds its constitutional mandate by transforming its confirmation authority into a substantive re-selection process—an ultra vires act that endangers judicial independence and has been explicitly recognized by the Constitutional Court. Using the frameworks of separation of powers and comparative constitutional law, this research contextualizes Indonesia’s challenges within broader Southeast Asian patterns. The findings reveal that the tension between political and judicial branches is structural and recurrent across the region, observable in the integrity crises of the Philippine Judicial and Bar Council, executive dominance in Malaysia, and the extreme politicization of the judiciary in Thailand under “rule by law.” Conversely, Singapore offers a model of centralized meritocracy. The study concludes that Indonesia’s reform failure stems from procedural loopholes that allow political actors to prioritize political legitimacy over constitutional supremacy. It recommends legislative amendments limiting the DPR’s role to formal consent only and strengthening the Judicial Commission to preserve a healthy rule of law.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
