Ethics and Professional Responsibilities of Judges in Carrying Out Duties in Law Enforcement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59525/rechtsvinding.1551Keywords:
Judicial Ethics; Judicial Accountability; Law EnforcementAbstract
The Judicial Code of Ethics serves as the ethical principles of judges, serving as the basis or guideline for every decision-making process in legal cases before them, as law enforcement officers, and in addressing the challenges of legal issues and legal developments. The purpose of this article is to provide the wider public with knowledge and understanding regarding ethics as a guideline and the challenges faced by judges in examining, adjudicating, and deciding legal cases. This article was written using literature and secondary data. The approach used in this research is the statutory approach. Judges are functional and state officials authorized to examine, adjudicate, and decide legal cases fairly and based on the law. Judges are responsible for interpreting and applying applicable law to cases before them and ensuring that justice and truth are achieved. The Judicial Code of Ethics is a written rule or code of conduct that judges must adhere to in carrying out their duties to ensure integrity, fairness, and public trust in the judicial institution. The Code of Ethics for the Judges' Professionalism contains the obligation and requirement to carry out their profession responsibly for the results and impacts of their actions and to refrain from violating the rights of others. The Code of Ethics is not law, but rather a norm that serves as a benchmark for legal professionals in upholding the authority of the law with humanity and justice. (Drs. H. Wildan Suyuthi Mustofa, "Judge's Code of Ethics," p. 52, Publisher: Jakarta, Kencana Prenada Media 2013.) The Code of Ethics for Judges is regulated by Joint Decrees of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia and the Chairman of the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia Number 047/KMA/SKB/IV/2009 and 02/SKB/P.KY/IV/2009 concerning the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Judges' Conduct. However, in their role as legal advocates, judges often face various ethical dilemmas in making legal decisions. These dilemmas can influence the decision-making process and the final outcome of a case. As a legal advocate, a judge is often faced with various ethical dilemmas in making decisions that ultimately resolve issues. Judges are often faced with situations where the strict application of the law does not always align with the principles of justice. This helps prevent arbitrary action and ensures that the law is applied consistently.
References
Astuti, F. F., & Jannah, L. N. (2025). Flexibility in Accessing Legal Information Through Social Media and Its Implications for Law Enforcement. Journal of Indonesian Constitutional Law, 2(1), 23-36.
Bernstein, A. (2024). Judicial Accountability. Geo. LJ, 113, 651.
Córdova, A., & Tiscornia, L. (2025). Law enforcement at the margin of the law: Information provision and support for militarization in Mexico. Journal of Peace Research, 62(5), 1428-1446.
Fusco, F., Pavone, P., & Ricci, P. (2024). Strengthening accountability and sustainability reporting: does stakeholder engagement really work? Evidence from the judicial sector. Social Responsibility Journal, 20(5), 1015-1039.
Gardner, J. A. (2023). New challenges to judicial federalism. Ky. LJ, 112, 703.
Geyh, C. G. (2023). Judicial ethics and identity. Geo. J. Legal Ethics, 36, 233.
Hirschl, R. (2024). JUDICIAL POWER. The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Judicial Behaviour, 65.
John, A. M., Aiswarya, M. U., & Panachakel, J. T. (2023, October). Ethical challenges of using artificial intelligence in judiciary. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Metrology for eXtended Reality, Artificial Intelligence and Neural Engineering (MetroXRAINE) (pp. 723-728). IEEE.
Khelil, I., Guidara, A., & Khlif, H. (2023). The effect of the strength of auditing and reporting standards on infrastructure quality in Africa: do ethical behaviour of firms and judicial independence matter?. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 28(1), 145-160.
Nuraliati, A., Astuti, A., Januarty, T. A., Johan, A., & Sudarmadi, D. (2025). An investigation of antecedents and outcomes of accounting information quality: Evidence from SMEs. Jurnal Akuntansi dan Auditing Indonesia.
Pudjiastuti, D. (2023). PENERAPAN PRINSIP AKUNTABILITAS DALAM INDEPENDENSI HAKIM DI INDONESIA: Application Of Accountability Principles In The Independence Of Judges In Indonesia. Res Nullius Law Journal, 5(2), 112-122.
Uding, C. V., Moon, H. R., & Lum, C. (2025). The status of co-responders in law enforcement: findings from a national survey of law enforcement agencies. Policing: An International Journal, 48(1), 69-97.
Qin, H. X., Wang, Y., & Hui, P. (2025). Identity, crimes, and law enforcement in the metaverse. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 1-15.
Undang-undang Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945
Undang-undang Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 Tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman
Keputusan Bersama Ketua Mahkamah Agung RI dan Ketua Komisi Yudisial RI Nomor 047/KMA/SKB/IV/2009 dan 02/SKB/P.KY/IV/2009 Tentang Kode Etik dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim
Soerjono Soekanto, Sri Mamudji. Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Cetakan ke-9 (Jakarta: PT. RajaGrafindo Persada, 2006).
Faqih, A. R. (2013). Kode Etik Dan Pedoman Perilaku Hakim. IN RIGHT: Jurnal Agama dan Hak Azazi Manusia.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yeti Kurniati, Yuninda Dwi Kartika, Yoga Gustiadi, Gede Indra Udayana, Andhika Nugraha Bhakti Agung
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
