"State officials and institutions must respect each other and implement whatever decision one official or one institution has made, whether they like it or not," Jimly Ashidiqqie from state University of Indonesia said after speaking at a seminar here on Saturday.
Three judges had been considered violating the code of ethics by neglecting evidence while trying former anti-graft chief Antasari Azhar.
Antasari was sentenced to 18 years in connection with a murder case after the MA rejected his appeal. He is now seeking a judicial review.
Due to that the Judicial Commission had asked the Supreme Court to suspend the judges from duty but the MA had refused to do it.
Jimly Ashidiqqie who is also the former chief of the Constitutional Court said MA`s stand to reject KY`s recommendation was not wise.
"KY is a constitutional institution and its existence is regulated in the constitution. It is an official state institution," he said.
He said once MA refused to honor the decision of other institutions it could not expect other institutions to also respect its decision.
"This can be a bad precedent for the tradition of statehood in the future. This is an institutional affair, not a personal one. MA`s future decisions may be ignored (because of its stance)," he said.
He said the KY`s decision actually could be used by MA as an entry point to correct what had been decided before. MA`s current stand would be counter-productive, he said.
"MA has rejected KY`s decision which it considered as an intervention into the substance of a case. This is a mere perception of MA towards KY`s decision-making process while that is not the actual fact. KY only saw the process of ruling not the substance when making the decision," he said.
Jumly said the view difference between the two sides could create an inter-state institution conflict which could be used as an example of an inter-state problem that could be brought to the Constitutional Court for settlement.
"Although under the law on constitutional court MA could not become a party in a dispute over authority of state institutions," he said.
The law states that for fear MA would be used by people who are not satisfied with its decision to call for its review.
"But if the Constitutional Court is willing to handle the case moreover after it has produced a regulation on procedures for a dispute among state institutions it is not impossible for the case to be handled by Constitutional Court," he said.
The prohibition for MA to be put as a party in a dispute is limited only to its rulings or the case substance. "Others are not prohibited such as about cost of a case and case making," he said.
So now it is up to KY how it would make its dispute with MA into a case to be brought to the Constitutional Court, he said.
(Uu.H-YH/HAJM/O001)
Editor: Priyambodo RH
Copyright © ANTARA 2011
