Jakarta. Indonesia’s ad hoc judges -- non-career judges recruited from professional backgrounds to handle specialized cases -- can now receive monthly salaries and allowances of more than Rp 105 million (around $6,000), depending on the level of court in which they serve.

Under a regulation signed by President Prabowo Subianto in February, ad hoc judges serving at district courts will receive at least Rp 49.3 million per month, while those at appellate courts will earn Rp 62.5 million. Judges serving at the Supreme Court can receive up to Rp 105.3 million monthly.

Indonesia’s legal system appoints ad hoc judges in five specialized areas requiring sector-specific expertise: corruption cases, industrial relations disputes, fisheries and illegal fishing cases, human rights courts, and commercial courts.

According to Presidential Regulation No. 5/2026, the compensation increase is intended to improve the quality of judicial administration. The regulation states that ad hoc judges play a strategic role in handling complex and sensitive cases and therefore require adequate compensation.

The Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), which relies heavily on ad hoc judges in corruption trials, welcomed the policy as part of broader efforts to reduce corruption risks within the judiciary.

However, higher pay must be accompanied by deeper reforms to strengthen transparency, accountability, and integrity across the judicial system, KPK spokesperson Budi Prasetyo said on Tuesday.

“Judges play a highly strategic role in Indonesia’s legal system. Every ruling is not only about resolving disputes, but also about delivering justice and building public trust in the law,” Budi said.

“We hope that improving judges’ welfare will reinforce the independence, professionalism, and integrity of judicial officials in carrying out their duties,” he added.

Budi noted that the judicial sector remains highly vulnerable to corrupt practices. In one of its studies on the court system, the KPK identified issues ranging from inconsistencies in judicial rulings to weaknesses in administrative record-keeping within court information systems.

The commission also found disparities in judges’ workloads and evidence of illegal fees being collected by court officials from litigants, he said.