Legal Literacy - Judges are often called God's representatives. This title arises from a judge's role in achieving justice by imposing legal sanctions commensurate with what someone has done. In addition to carrying out their role, judges have the duty to examine, adjudicate, and decide cases. In maintaining harmony between the role and duties of a judge, strong independence and integrity of the judge are needed so that the decisions produced are not tainted. If the independence or integrity of a judge is tainted by outside parties, it will have a negative impact on the judicial system.
In the court process, in reality, there are quite a few negative reactions received by a judge for the decisions they have made. One of the negative reactions resulting from a decision is called PMKH.
Understanding PMKH
Let me briefly explain about this PMKH. PMKH (Acts Degrading the Honor and Dignity of Judges) is stated in Article 1 number 2 of the Judicial Commission (KY) Regulation which reads: Acts degrading the honor and dignity of judges are actions by individuals, groups of people or legal entities that disrupt the court process, or judges in examining, adjudicating, deciding cases, threatening the security of judges inside and outside the courtroom, insulting judges and the court. Based on this Article, we can know that PMKH acts can be categorized into 3 (three) types, namely; first, disrupting the court process, in the case of judges examining, adjudicating, and deciding cases, second, threatening the security of judges inside and outside the court, third, insulting judges and the court.
Of the three categories of PMKH acts that potentially threaten the life of a judge is the second category, namely: threatening the security of judges inside and outside the court. Why is this PMKH category more likely to threaten the life of a judge? Because PMKH acts outside the court are not directly supervised by internal supervisory institutions or external supervisory institutions. Supervisory institutions will only exist if there is a report of alleged PMKH that has occurred.
The Influence of Digitalization Development on Threats Against Judges Outside the Court
In the era of digitalization development in the form of sophisticated technological tools, it has a major impact on the birth of PMKH innovations. One of these PMKH innovations can take the form of hate speech on social media.
Hate speech on social media is unavoidable because social media has become a daily consumption for the public. This hate speech can be carried out by insulting judges, making accusations, or even threatening the safety of a judge. In this case, there is no role for supervisory institutions in supervising judges before the emergence of reports of alleged Actions that Undermine the Honor and Dignity of Judges (PMKH) that occur to judges.
In fact, in reality, supervision and protection of judges are needed before PMKH occurs, which is in line with the saying: prevention is better than cure.
If PMKH has occurred to a judge and the act is a PMKH that could threaten the safety of a judge, is protection needed after the PMKH occurs?
True, some people would think that protection is needed after PMKH occurs so that the PMKH committed previously does not happen again. That thought is true, but we need to know that protection is more important and very much needed before PMKH occurs in order to prevent unwanted actions, one of which is PMKH that threatens the safety of a judge.
Every decision issued by a judge naturally has parties who do not accept the decision, namely those who feel disadvantaged by the issuance of the decision or those who feel defeated in the battle in the court, so that the issuance of the decision gives rise to negative reactions that cannot be predicted by anyone.
Hopes for Creating More Guaranteed Security for Judges
So the response as an internal and external supervisory institution should be able to find a middle ground to prevent PMKH from occurring to a judge. One way is to supervise and protect judges after a judge decides a court decision, because the potential for PMKH can occur not only inside the court but also outside the court, namely after the decision is read out by the judge. This preventive action can serve as evidence to maximize the duties and roles of an internal supervisory institution and an external institution towards a judge.
Therefore, the role of supervisory institutions, both internal and external supervisory institutions, is very necessary in providing protection to a judge, also known as judge advocacy, because the main target of PMKH is aimed at a judge in carrying out his duties as an enforcer of the court. In carrying out the task of protecting judges, it is very much needed not only when PMKH has occurred and been reported, but it is also much more needed before PMKH occurs so that the worst possibilities that will happen to judges can be prevented because there is supervision and protection carried out by internal and external supervisory institutions.
Comments (0)
Write a comment