Legal Literacy - In various cases involving the judiciary, politicization of the judiciary orpoliticization of judiciary especially in the Constitutional Court, continues to be a classic problem that is impossible to eradicate. Politicization of the judiciary is not only in judicial review, but also touches on the recruitment or nomination process for constitutional court justices. Especially recently, regarding suspicions of politicization that raise questions about the legitimacy of the recruitment of Constitutional Justice Adies Kadir by the House of Representatives (DPR).

Politicization of the Judiciary in the Recruitment of Constitutional Justices

Ran Hirschl definespoliticization of judiciary as a process in which courts or constitutional courts become arenas of political contestation and instruments for achieving political goals, both through the strategic use of constitutional litigation by political actors and through the court's responsiveness to political pressures in judicial decision-making.

Thus, the form of politicization of the Constitutional Court in the context of the recruitment of constitutional justices does not only lie in the presence of political actors in the nomination process, but when the political interests of the nominating institution begin to determine who is worthy of becoming a judge, and slowly eliminate constitutional juridical measures such as integrity, justice, and statesmanship.

The same goes for the recent recruitment process of Adies Kadir, which is suspected of being a process of distributing the political interests of the DPR. How can there be changes and new decisions at the final end of the nomination process for Inosentius as a candidate for constitutional justice. Can the decision of the plenary session on the series of fit and proper tests be annulled on the grounds that the person concerned has other state duties? It was not even mentioned that the previous session decree had been revoked, but it was immediately overwritten with a new plenary session decree. This is what shows that what is called “fit proper test” seems to be seen only as a stage of “complete or not, just gather”.

The results of this stage ultimately do not have the quality or representation of the initial procedural that inspires the suitability of constitutional justices with their nominating institutions. What is the point if all legal rules or procedures are ultimately easily politicized by the majority institution?

These practices have unconsciously shaped the legitimacy of practical political habits that are fraught with problems. All formal and material legal rules will be easily trimmed by the politicization practices of the three major branches of power. Practical politics in this case, the DPR, is not only based on allegations against the Adies Kadir case. But also comes from history previously regarding the dismissal of Constitutional Justice Aswanto on the grounds that he was considered to often annul laws formed by the DPR or was no longer considered in line. This clarifies the DPR's position in the nomination of constitutional justices is no longer based on juridical standards or measures, but has shifted to the political interests of the DPR or other interests. Therefore, it is no longer enough to question the integrity of the candidate for constitutional justice, but it is also important to assess the integrity of the DPR, the President, and the Supreme Court (MA) as nominating institutions.