Jakarta – PR: Acting Head of the Oversight Agency of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Suradi, S.H., S.Sos., M.H., emphasized that the Supreme Court continues to strengthen its internal oversight functions as an effort to maintain the integrity of judges and judicial apparatus. He stated that there are five main steps that have been taken to achieve it.

These steps include strengthening regulations, mapping potential corruption in the judiciary, modernizing oversight mechanisms, implementing an anti-bribery management system within the judiciary, and establishing a special oversight unit.

He presented this information during a forum for the joint hearing with Commission III of the House of Representatives, which was also attended by representatives from the National Police and the Attorney General's Office on Tuesday (November 18) in the Meeting Room of Commission III, Parliament Complex, Jakarta, discussing strategies to strengthen national legal reform.

At the event, Suradi was accompanied by the Inspector of Regions I and III of the Supreme Court’s Oversight Agency, the Secretary of the Oversight Agency, Judicial Judges, as well as officials from Echelon II and III, functional staff, and the staff of the Supreme Court’s Oversight Agency.

He explained that the Supreme Court has issued several regulations and oversight instruments, starting from the Joint Decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice of the Judicial Commission regarding the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judge Conduct that has been in effect since 2009, the Code of Ethics and Conduct for Court Registrars and Bailiffs through Supreme Court Decree Number 112 of 2012, to Supreme Court Regulation Number 9 of 2016 concerning Guidelines for Handling Complaints (Whistleblowing System) in the Supreme Court and the courts under it.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court also encourages court reform by achieving the designation of Corruption-Free Zone (WBK) and Clean and Serving Bureaucracy Zone (WBBM) in various work units.

“As of now in 2024, 260 work units have achieved WBK status, although one unit was revoked due to a hand-catching operation, and 16 units have received WBBM status. In addition to building integrity zones, there is also gratification control, so a gratification control unit has been formed through the Decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Number 119 of 2019,” said Suradi.

Suradi, who is also a Supreme Court Justice in the Criminal Chamber, explained that the Oversight Agency pays special attention to increasing compliance through monitoring activities and measuring potential corruption in the courts.

“The Supreme Court, together with the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) and Australia-Indonesia Partnership for Justice (AIPJ 2), has conducted a corruption risk assessment and evaluation of the implementation of this article at 27 courts and three judicial bodies spread across 27 cities in the western, central, and eastern regions,” he added.

Modernizing oversight mechanisms is another strategy, including optimizing online complaint platforms for both internal use and the public through SIWAS and the WASTITAMA oversight application.

“This application allows supervisors to conduct comprehensive monitoring starting from case data across all courts, including the handling of cases that have been resolved by each judge, to direct access to CCTV in all courts to ensure transparency in the process,” he stated.

The Supreme Court has also established a special oversight unit based on the Decision of the Head of the Oversight Agency Number 74 of 2022. This unit is tasked with assessing the anti-bribery management system, developing integrity zones towards WBK/WBBM, and conducting ethical operations in the form of hand-catching of judges or apparatus suspected of violating ethics or conduct guidelines.

The special unit also conducts integrity profiling of judges and apparatus throughout the judicial ranks.

“Currently, the integrity profiling of judges has reached 3,127 out of a total of 9,112 judges, so in percentage terms, it is 34.32 percent. The current profiling data is used as a reference in leadership policy-making, one of which is the use of profiling results as consideration for the promotion and transfer of judges,” he stated.

Suradi also reported that from January to October 2025, there were 176 the Supreme Court personnel subjected to disciplinary sanctions. This number has decreased compared to 2024, which had 244 disciplinary actions.

Of that total, 78 were judges and ad hoc judges, while the remaining 98 consisted of structural officials, functional staff, and non-permanent staff within the court administration and secretariat.

“We see from 2018 to 2025 that there have been fluctuations; in 2018 there were 163, in 2019 there were 179, in 2020 there were 162, in 2021 there was a spike to 284, in 2022 there were 271, in 2023 there were 295, in 2024 there were 244, and finally, up to October this year, there are 176,” Suradi explained.

In the same year, there were 40 judges proposed by the Judicial Commission (KY) for sanctions. Of this number, 25 have been processed by the Oversight  Agency, while 15 are still under handling.

Additionally, in 2025, the Oversight Agency of the Supreme Court has scheduled a session of the Judges Honor Council for 18 judges proposed for severe sanctions in the form of dismissal, consisting of 11 judges proposed by the Supreme Court and 7 proposed by the KY. The violations committed were related to gratification practices and immoral actions. (sk/ds/RS/Photo:kdr/translated by:azh)