<![CDATA[Judges' welfare provision has stagnated, affecting their integrity. The increasingly complex problem actually stems from regulations that currently cannot accommodate all financial rights and facilities of judges. For example, in the dynamics related to the amount of basic salary and allowances in Government Regulation No. 94/2012 until its first amendment, it is still said to be very minimal, as well as Decision No. 23 P/HUM/2018 which revoked the basic salary of judges with Civil Servants (PNS) but there was no follow-up after the decision to form a legal umbrella. Financial intervention will certainly have a great potential to occur among judges, when effectiveness is present due to the lack of the state in ensuring the welfare of judges, so that later decisions are given based on how much finance is offered by individuals through transactional activities that lead to judicial corruption. The research method uses normative jurisprudence referring to laws and regulations as well as literature studies in the form of books, journals, and other literature. The research is prescriptive in nature to find ideal ideas accompanied by comparative studies to examine legal systems in other countries. The results show that the problematic system of judges‘ salaries, as well as the limited regulations, need to emulate the United States, which applies constitutional salary protection and prohibits congress from reducing judges’ salaries. In Canada there is a judicial commission function to conduct investigations related to the adequacy of salaries and other amounts that must be disclosed to government-appointed judges periodically. The construction of the regulation of financial rights and facilities of judges needs to pay attention to the principles of judicial remuneration and research related to its effect on improving performance, to be accommodated later in the Judgeship Bill as a legal umbrella to improve the welfare of judges in Indonesia.]]>
