Legal Consequences of the Judge's Error by Not Including Court Evidence in a Decision

The establishment of the Judicial Commission of the Republic of Indonesia (external supervisory body) as a state institution is mandated by Article 24B of the 1945 Constitution. Law No. 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission was enacted to fulfill this mandate, as amended by Law No. 18 of 2011 on Amendments to Law No. 22 of 2004 on the Judicial Commission. To exercise its authority, namely to uphold and maintain the honor, dignity, and conduct of judges, the Judicial Commission adheres to the Code of Ethics and/or Guidelines for Judicial Conduct (KEPPH). In practice, the judge considers the decision of the Palu District Court Number 102/Pdt.G/2022/PN Pal. jo. the Decision of the Central Sulawesi High Court No. 29/PDT/2023/PT PAL, which was based on evidence that the Plaintiff never submitted during the trial. This research aims to deepen knowledge regarding the legal consequences for judges who fail to include evidence in court proceedings and to identify and determine the concept of judicial negligence in rendering a decision without including evidence in the court proceedings. The results of the study indicate that the actions of the Panel of Judges in the decision are contrary to Article 53 of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power, which states that a decision must contain the judge's legal considerations based on proper and correct reasons and legal grounds. Number 10 jo. Article 14 of the KEPPH also stipulates that judges must be professional and avoid errors in their decisions. Judges are also bound by the 2002 Bangalore Basic Principles, namely independence, neutrality of the judiciary, and integrity of judges. The Judicial Commission is authorized to enforce the KEPPH by proposing sanctions against the judges concerned, considering several factors, namely the existence of indications, evidence, intentional elements, and the decision's impact containing the judge's error. Judges are also bound by the 2002 Bangalore Principles, namely independence, neutrality of the judicial institution, and judicial integrity.