Legal Literacy - The idea of the rule of law always rests on one main foundation: the upholding of justice through a consistent system. Justice is not measured by the level of satisfaction of the parties, but by the fidelity of the judiciary to its legal principles. In every case, differences of interest almost certainly give rise to dissatisfied parties. Therefore, what must be maintained is not the popularity of the decision, but the independence of judges as affirmed in Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.[1]

Public discourse lately shows a worrying shift. Debates about the product of decisions often slip from testing legal arguments (examination) to assessing judges as individuals. Controversial decisions are often stigmatized as a reflection of the judge's subjective motives, ignoring the complexity of the layered judicial process. This phenomenon gives rise to "trial by opinion" where the line between legitimate judicial criticism and pressure on the freedom of judges becomes increasingly blurred.

The essence of judicial power itself rests on the principle of independence. Without a guarantee of that freedom, the judiciary risks losing its substantive meaning and simply becoming an administrative procedure. A judge is bound to decide based on facts, evidence, and applicable legal norms, free from political, economic, or social pressure.[2] This freedom is not a form of personal privilege, but institutional protection for the benefit of the justice-seeking community.

In modern law, the meaning of independence is increasingly broad. It is not only interpreted as being free from interference from other branches of power, but also includes intellectual freedom in formulating legal considerations. If a judge works in an atmosphere of concern about consequences outside the judicial mechanism, then his substantive freedom is threatened. This is where the importance of guaranteeing institutional security so that the judicial function can be carried out professionally.

The framework for supervising judges has actually been designed with clear boundaries, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Prof. Sunarto, emphasized that the relationship of authority between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission in handling alleged violations by judges has been clearly regulated through the Joint Regulation of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission Number 02/PB/MA/IX/2012 and 02/PB/P.KY/ 09/2012 concerning Guidelines for Enforcing the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judge Behavior. The regulation clearly distinguishes the realm of ethics and behavior of judges from the realm of judicial technique inherent in considerations and the verdict.