THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION’S DELAYS IN HANDLING PUBLIC COMPLAINT REPORTS: AN ONRECHTMATIGE OVERHEIDSDAAD PERSPECTIVE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v18i2.738Keywords:
onrechtmatige overheidsdaad, public service professionalism, judicial oversightAbstract
Professionalism in public service delivery is a prerequisite for every state institution, including the Judicial Commission, in following up public complaint reports concerning alleged violations of the Code of Ethics and Judicial Conduct (KEPPH). This study examines Judgment Number 405/Pdt.G/2023/PN.Smg concerning a claim of onrechtmatige overheidsdaad filed against the Judicial Commission arising from delays in handling public complaint reports. This study aims to analyze the judicial reasoning in determining whether the alleged lack of professionalism of the Judicial Commission may be classified as onrechtmatige overheidsdaad. The study also analyzes the corrective measures undertaken by the Judicial Commission to address factors that cause delays in handling public reports in the future. This study employs normative legal research using a case approach. The findings indicate that the panel of judges did not explicitly base its reasoning on the doctrine of onrechtmatige overheidsdaad. Instead, the judicial reasoning primarily focused on the Judicial Commission’s institutional status as a state institution responsible for public service delivery. The panel of judges found indications of a lack of professionalism based on evidence demonstrating delays and procedural deviations in handling public reports. The study further shows that the Judicial Commission has implemented improvements by streamlining report-handling procedures through revisions to its internal regulations and strengthening its digital-based report-handling system. These measures are intended to improve the efficiency, transparency, and accountability of public service delivery. These measures reflect Judicial Commission’s commitment to administrative reform to prevent recurring delays in handling public reports while continuously improving the quality of public service delivery.
References
Alfarauq, D. Y., Marwiyah, S., & Prawesthi, W. (2025). Urgensi kewenangan Komisi Yudisial dalam rangka menjaga perilaku hakim. Konsensus: Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan, Hukum dan Ilmu Komunikasi, 2(2), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.62383/konsensus.v2i2.660.
Asshiddiqqie, J. (2006). Pengantar ilmu hukum tata negara. Jilid II. Jakarta: Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi RI.
Hakanadila, Z. S., & Salam, A. (2025). Tinjauan yuridis terhadap penerapan Pasal 1365 dan Pasal 1372 Kuhperdata secara kumulatif terhadap gugatan ganti rugi dalam kasus pencemaran nama baik. Lex Patrimonium, 4(3), 1-15.
Hakim, M., A., & Amnesti, S. K. W. (2022). Problematika penanganan gugatan perbuatan melanggar hukum oleh pemerintah (Onrechtmatige overheidsdaad) pada peradilan tata usaha negara. De Jure: Jurnal Hukum dan Syar’iah, 14(1), 125-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.18860/j-fsh.v14i1.15833.
Imran., Adolf, H., Hendro, G. D., & Cahyowati, R. R. (2018). Strengthening the position and function of the Judicial Commission in the constitutional system of the Republic of Indonesia. Journal of Liberty and International Affairs, 4(3), 99-105.
Kuhlmann, S., & Heuberger, M. (2023). Digital transformation going local: Implementation, impacts and constraints from a German perspective. Public Money & Management, 43(2), 147-155. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2021.1939584.
Latupeirissa, J. J. P., Dewi, N. L. Y., Prayana, I. K. R., Srikandi, M. B., Ramadiansyah, S. A., & Pramana, I. B. G. A. Y. (2024). Transforming public service delivery: A comprehensive review of digitization initiatives. Sustainability, 16(7), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072818.
Montesqiueu, B. de. (2005). The spirit of laws (1748). Nugent, T., & Prichard, J. V. (Trans.). www.lonang.com.
Pamungkas, R. J., Rajab, R., & Rahayu, N. S. (2023). Analisis produktivitas kerja pegawai di Biro Pengawasan Perilaku Hakim Sekretariat Jenderal Komisi Yudisial Republik Indonesia. Jurnal Sumber Daya Aparatur, 5(2), 35-54. https://doi.org/10.32834/jsda.v5i2.649.
Putra, R., Taufiqurrahman, M. M., & Pambudi, B. R. (2022). Governing the Ombudsman as an independent state institution in the constitution: An attempt to strengthen public service supervision in Indonesia. Al Daulah Jurnal Hukum Pidana dan Ketatanegaraan, 11(1), 15-32.
Sulaeman, E. A., Afriana, A., Mutaqqin, Z., & Suparman, E. (2023). Controversy on the absolute competency of civil courts in investigating unlawful actions committed by the government in Indonesia. Journal of Law and Sustainable Development, 11(11), e1845. https://doi.org/10.55908/sdgs.v11i11.1845.
Susanti, R. (2018). Evaluasi bentuk formil dan substansi materil Peraturan Komisi Yudisial Nomor 2 Tahun 2015 tentang Tata Cara Penanganan Laporan Masyarakat sebagai peraturan perundang-undangan. Tesis. Jakarta: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.
Verhoef, P. C., Broekhuizen, T., Bart, Y., Bhattacharya, A., Qi Dong, J., Fabian, N., & Haenlein, M. (2021). Digital transformation: A multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 122, 889-901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.09.022.
Yasa, P. G. A. S., Setyaningrum, W., & Sudiarawan, K. A. (2021). Unlawful administrative act: Indonesian administrative law perspective. Varia Justicia, 17(2), 160-170. https://doi.org/10.31603/variajusticia.v17i2.5172.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Rahayu Susanti, Tata Wijayanta, Mailinda Eka Yuniza
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
