In a national legal system, the intertwined authorities who uphold the law—the police, judges, and attorneys—play a significant role in determining whether the law is perceived to be just or tyrannical. Thus, through all means of constitutions and and court system, judges are obliged to establish and maintain the law enforcement.In exercising their authorities in making final rulings, judges should be free from legislative and executive intervention. If this principle is still unable to bring up positive image of the legal system, what has gone wrong? In fact, some measures to improve judicial power through the establishment of Constitutional Court and Judicial Commission still cannot afford to get rid of „judicial mafia‟ label.The tiered justice system (municipal court level, appeal, cassation, and judicial review) is an attempt to prevent or review any breaches of prior judges so that such things should be freed and should not be tolerated in the final level. However, in case of legal defect in a judicial review, what should the Supreme Court do? This poses the Supreme Court with a dilemma: reviewing a judicial review is apparently against the law; ignoring such legal defect, on the other hand, is such a negative precedent.