Beyond Constitutional Limits: An Ultra Vires Analysis of the DPR’s Fit and Proper Test and the Erosion of Judicial Independence in Indonesia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.38035/jgsp.v3i4.524Keywords:
Judicial Independence, Fit and Proper Test, Ultra Vires, Separation of Powers, Southeast Asian ComparisonAbstract
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.
References
Aensiweb.com. (2011). Judicial Appointment Commission Act of 2009: A legal analysis. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 7(12), 2273–2278. Retrieved from https://www.aensiweb.com/old/jasr/jasr/2011/2273-2278.pdf
Bloomsbury. (n.d.). The rule of law in Singapore: Legal communitarianism, paternal democracy and the developmentalist state. Retrieved from https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/rule-of-law-in-singapore-9781509951390/
Cambridge University Press. (n.d.). Judicial independence. In T. Ginsburg, M. P. M. Tushnet, & L. D. E. Dixon (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of constitutional theory. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cambridge-handbook-of-constitutional-theory/judicial-independence/3A6B7E74F3AA526E1223BD93AF533421
Channel NewsAsia. (2025, July 18). Whether new appointments head off Malaysia's judiciary crisis depends on King's decision. Retrieved from https://www.channelnewsasia.com/asia/malaysia-judiciary-crisis-judges-political-test-anwar-conference-rulers-5239486
Digital Commons @ University of Washington School of Law. (2017). Judicial activism in Thailand's Constitutional Court: A threat to democracy? Washington International Law Journal, 26(2), 291–320. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wilj/vol26/iss2/4/
Emerald Publishing. (2025). Book review: Courts and politics in Southeast Asia. Southeast Asia: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(2), 133–134. Retrieved from https://www.emerald.com/seamj/article/25/2/133/1279199/Book-review-Courts-and-politics-in-Southeast-Asia
European Law Institute. (n.d.). Constitutional Court of the Kingdom of Thailand. Retrieved from https://www.europeanlawinstitute.eu/membership/institutional-members/constitutional-court-of-the-kingdom-of-thailand/
Ginsburg, T., & Moustafa, T. (Eds.). (2008). Rule by law: The politics of courts in authoritarian regimes. Cambridge University Press.
Intelligence Strategy.org. (n.d.). Meritocracy in government leadership: Example of Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.intelligencestrategy.org/blog-posts/meritocracy-in-government-leadership-example-of-singapore-ee4ee
Judiciary.gov.ph. (2014). Jardeleza v. Sereno, G.R. No. 213161. Retrieved from https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/57437
Judiciary.gov.sg. (n.d.). The Supreme Court bench. Retrieved from https://www.judiciary.gov.sg/who-we-are/role-structure-supreme-court/structure
Kyoto Review. (2024). Thai Constitutional Court erodes electoral integrity. Kyoto Review of Southeast Asia, (40). Retrieved from https://kyotoreview.org/issue-40/thai-constitutional-court-erodes-electoral-integrity/
Kumparan.com. (2025, September 9). Komisi III DPR gelar fit and proper test calon hakim agung 9 September. Retrieved from https://m.kumparan.com/kumparannews/komisi-iii-dpr-gelar-fit-and-proper-test-calon-hakim-agung-9-september-25gXmDeGdG0
Malay Mail. (2025, July 22). Simplified: How judges are selected in Malaysia vs UK, Australia, Singapore, India. Retrieved from https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2025/07/22/simplified-how-judges-are-selected-in-malaysia-vs-uk-australia-singapore-india/184644
NCSL. (n.d.). Separation of powers: An overview. Retrieved from https://www.ncsl.org/about-state-legislatures/separation-of-powers-an-overview
OHCHR. (2018, June 1). Judicial independence in Philippines under threat, says UN human rights expert. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2018/06/judicial-independence-philippines-under-threat-says-un-human-rights-expert
Official Portal Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Malaysia. (n.d.). Introduction. Retrieved from https://www.jac.gov.my/en/commission/introduction
OpenEdition Journals. (2019). The legitimacy of judicial review: An institutionalist perspective. Revus: Journal for Constitutional Theory and Philosophy of Law, (38). Retrieved from https://journals.openedition.org/revus/5180
ResearchGate. (2010). Meritocracy and the Singapore political system. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249042100_Meritocracy_and_the_Singapore_Political_System
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (1998). Institutionalism in law. Retrieved from https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/institutionalism-in-law/v-1
RSIS International. (2020). Comparative judiciaries: Unveiling judicial review practices in Malaysia & Indonesia. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 4(12), 258–266. Retrieved from https://rsisinternational.org/journals/ijriss/articles/comparative-judiciaries-unveiling-judicial-review-practices-in-malaysia-indonesia/
Setiausaha JAC. (n.d.). Why join us? Judicial Service Commission Singapore. Retrieved from https://www.jsc.gov.sg/careers/a-career-with-us/why-join-us/
Tate, C. N., & Vallinder, T. (Eds.). (1995). The global expansion of judicial power (Vol. 10). New York University Press.
UNDP. (2024). Judicial integrity and independence in Southeast Asia. Retrieved from https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2025-06/judicial_integrity_and_independence_in_sea_v2.pdf
Vanderbilt Law School. (2017). Judicial politics and decisionmaking. Vanderbilt Law Review, 70(4), 1217–1244. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/context/faculty-publications/article/1752/viewcontent/Judicial_Politics_and_Decisionmaking__Guthrie.pdf
Venice Commission. (2013). The role of constitutional courts in protecting fundamental rights in young democracies. Keynote speech by G. Grabenwarter. Retrieved from https://www.venice.coe.int/wccj/rio/papers/AUT_Grabenwarter_keynotespeech.pdf
Wikipedia. (n.d.). 2025 Malaysian judicial appointment controversy. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Malaysian_judicial_appointment_controversy
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Judicial and Bar Council. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_and_Bar_Council
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Political process theory (law). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_process_theory_(law
YouTube. (2025, September 10). Komisi III DPR RI uji kelayakan (fit and proper test) calon hakim agung dan hakim ad hoc di Mahkamah Agung tahun 2025 (Part 2). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE9v56JkN_s
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Ari Julianto, Evita Isretno Israhadi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Hak cipta :
Penulis yang mempublikasikan manuskripnya di jurnal ini menyetujui ketentuan berikut:
- Hak cipta pada setiap artikel adalah milik penulis.
- Penulis mengakui bahwa Jurnal Greenation Sosial dan Politik (JGSP) berhak menjadi yang pertama menerbitkan dengan lisensi Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (Attribution 4.0 International CC BY 4.0) .
- Penulis dapat mengirimkan artikel secara terpisah, mengatur distribusi non-eksklusif manuskrip yang telah diterbitkan dalam jurnal ini ke versi lain (misalnya, dikirim ke repositori institusi penulis, publikasi ke dalam buku, dll.), dengan mengakui bahwa manuskrip telah diterbitkan pertama kali di JGSP.






















