This paper discusses the Independence of the Judiciary written by Fajar Laksono Suroso, which was published in the Constitutional Magazine.

Legal Literacy - The balanced intertwining of law and democracy is the perfect appearance expected of all countries with constitutional democracies. The rule of law is implemented based on the 'general will' reflected in the rule of law. Thus, it is said that the rule of law is a manifestation of the principle of popular sovereignty or democracy. Tamanaha (2004:7) mentions that the term rule of law has long been considered synonymous with democracy. Neumann (1986:27) calls it democratic rule of law. Without 'democracy', the rule of law may have abundant laws, but it does not aim to limit the power of the rulers, but to protect the freedoms and rights of citizens. It could be that the state of law is merely a 'state of law' to avoid calling it harshly as an authoritarian state.

In a democratic rule of law, together with the executive and legislative branches, the judiciary works under the principle of separation of powers. Here, the term judiciary is used interchangeably with judicial power and courts. The legislature makes laws. The executive implements laws. The judiciary ensures that the making and implementation of laws do not disregard the values of justice. All three have a harmonious contribution to keeping the pulse of constitutionalism beating.

Unlike the legislature and executive, which interact and cooperate in carrying out their authorities, the judiciary must be separated in such a way. Separated not to give privileges, but to protect citizens from the arbitrariness of the rulers. In constitutional democracies, courts are designed as 'referees' to prevent and protect democracy from fraudulent actors. Therefore, the court is given independence. Harold See (1998:146-147) means that the court, in addition to being institutionally independent, separate from any branch of power, including organizational, administrative, personnel, and financial, is also independent in making decisions (decisional independence). With that independence, Aharon Barak (2006:22) states that the court can carry out its main function, which is to provide protection for democracy. That is also what makes the court the epicenter of a democratic rule of law. The courts are the capital of law’s empire, and judges are its princes, said Ronald Dworkin.

The problem is independence, of the judiciary in many countries is stained with dark records. Great authority with independence in hand makes the judiciary so crucial in influencing other branches of power. Therefore, these two branches of power will never let independence be fully in the grip of the judiciary (2018:12). This is one of the reasons why courts often face less than ideal situations. Courts have a crucial role, are attached to independence, but this is precisely what makes them experience a paradox. In the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton stated that the court is the “weakest” and “least dangerous” branch of power because it has no army, sword, or money to enforce its decisions. Is that true? On the one hand, I believe the court is truly the ‘weakest.’ But on the other hand, I am beginning to doubt the opinion that the court is “least dangerous.” This is where the paradox of judicial independence arises.