Reform Programs in the Case Management: the Indonesian Judiciary Experiences
By
Takdir Rahmadi
Justice, the Supreme Court of Indonesia.
I.
Introduction.
To follow up the political and constitutional reforms as the national agenda, the leadership of
the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (hereafter referred to as the SCRI) in 2003 published
a blueprint for reform of the SCRI. The blueprint of 2003 contains, inter alia,
a diagnostic
assessment of various problems that encounter the SCRI in performing its power and policy
recommendations that need to be taken in order to resolve those problems. Thus, the blueprint of
2003 is a policy document that provides the SCRI with the guidelines to implement the institutional
reform programs in pursuant to the constitutional reform. It also reflects the transitional period from
the so-called two-roof system of the judiciary to one-roof system of the judiciary. 1The Judiciary
system in Indonesia recognizes four types of courts. These are the general courts, the administrative
courts, the shariah courts and the military courts. The general courts have the power to hear criminal
and civil cases. The administrative courts have the power to try administrative cases where a citizen
brings a legal action against a governmental entity. The sharia courts have the power to hear domestic
disputes among Moslem such as divorce, division of property and child custody after divorce, and
disputes arising from legal relation in the field of the shariah economic. The military courts have the
power to try military personnel who commit a crime. Each type of the court has its own court of
appeal.
Under the two-roof system of the judiciary, the SCRI held the highest power over technical
judicial matters only, such as cassation, and final review of while the Ministry of Justice held the
power over financial and administrative management and human resources of the general and
administrative courts, the Ministry of Religious Affairs was in charge of financial and administrative
management and human resources of the religious or sharia courts and the Ministry of Defense held
the responsibility of resource management of the military courts.
Since the third constitutional amendment of 2001, however, besides holding the highest power
over technical judicial matters, the SCRI also has been granted the power over budget, administration
and human resources of the judiciary. This system is called as one-roof system of judiciary.
The
transfer of the power over non-judicial matters from the executive branch to the SCRI is intended to
strengthen the idea of independency of judiciary as the foundation of the rule of law. Since according
1
to the one-roof system, the power of the SCRI has been broadened to include non-judicial matters
such as financial, human and asset management and administration, the organizational structure of the
SCRI is also has been enlarged as well. The expanded institutional structure can be seen in the
creation of position of vice chief justice in charge of non-judicial matters under the Act number 5 of
2004 concerning the Supreme Court of Republic of Indonesia. According to the Act number 5 of
2004, the leadership of the SCRI comprises chief justice and two vices chief justice. The two vices
chief justice are the vice chief justice in charge of judicial matters and the vice chief justice in charge
of non-judicial matters. The vice chief justice in judicial matters coordinates seven junior chiefs
justice. They are the junior chief justices in civil, special civil, general criminal, special criminal,
sharia, administrative and military cases. The vice chief justice in non-judicial matters coordinates
two junior chief justices. They are junior chief justices in supervision and junior chief justice in
human resource development. Thus nowadays there are nine junior chief justices. Chief justice and
two vices chief justice are elected among and by justices in the plenary meeting of justices. The nine
junior chief justices are appointed by elected chief justice.
II. The Blueprint of 2010
Since time frame of the blueprint of 2003 ended in 2008 and new circumstances need to be
taken into account of making of judicial reform programs, the leadership of the SCRI decided to
prepare and published a new blueprint that replaces the blueprint of 2003. After two years in the
process of making it in which all stake holders of the judiciary such as judges of the court of the first
instances and of appeals, justices, court registrars, advocates, activists of non-governmental
organization concerned with the judiciary and representatives of mass media were involved in, the
SCRI in 2010 finally published a blueprint of judicial reform of 2010-2035. The blueprint of 20102035 still adopts or extended programs under the blueprint of 2003 because such programs need to be
continuously carried out. There are differences, however, between the blueprint of 2003 and the
blueprint of 2010 in particularly in term of their scope. The scope of the former is limited to the
reform programs for the SCRI only and exclude the courts of first instances and courts of appeals,
while that of the latter establishes long-term reform programs (2010-2035) of the Indonesian judiciary
as a whole that include the courts of first instances, the courts of appeals and of course the SCRI
itself.
The Blueprint of 2010 provides a vision of the Indonesian courts. The vision is to bring about
the court excellent court values into reality. These excellent court values are: (1) independency of
2
judiciary as stated in article 24 of the Indonesian Constitution of 1945; (2) integrity, as stated in
article 24A of the Constitution; (3) impartiality as stated in article 4 paragraph (1) of the Act
concerning Judicial Power of 2009 (hereafter referred to as the AJD); (4) transparency, as stated in
article 13 and 52 of the AJD; (5) equal treatment of the parties before the law, stated in article 4 (1) of
the AJD; (6) Accountability as stated in article 52 and article 53 of the AJD.
III. Case Management
The reform programs basically focus on improving case management in order to achieve the
principle stated in article 2 paragraph (4) of the Act Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power
(the AJD) which inter alia provides: “the Court shall perform its services in simple, speedy and less
costly process”. Like people in most countries, Indonesian people also see process of litigation as a
battle, or precisely a legal battle, which is often complicated, costly and time consuming. That is why
most Indonesian people portray the litigation process with the following expression: “winning a legal
case becomes an ember and losing it become an ash”, sometime they put in the different expression
but with a similar meaning: “in order to get a goat, one has to get lost of a cow”. This is why the
Indonesia law maker has to incorporate a simple, speedy and less costly process of litigation as a
policy principle in the court process into the Act of Judicial Power. The law makers do not elaborate
how this policy principle is to be achieved, but it is left to the judiciary to interpret and develop the
rules and programs that can bring the principle into reality. Of course, the speedy and efficient
process of litigation is not only in best interest of the Indonesian ordinary citizens, but also for all
justice seekers, including foreign investors who may have legal problems are dissatisfied with the
prolonged legal battle because it will undermine their resources and energy. Investors or the business
community like to resolve their differences in efficient way. The Indonesian judiciary should respond
this need positively. Of course, it is not easy for the judiciary to bring about the principle into the
reality because it is the nature of law which is often complicated and formalistic.
The Blueprint of 2010 has established the directions of reforms in relation to case management.
The directions can be distinguished in two kinds of directions. First the directions of reform program
in relation to judicial function and secondly the directions of reform programs in relation to nonjudicial matters or the notion of case management in narrow term.
A number of judicial policies
have been taken as efforts to achieve simple, speedy and less costly process of litigation in the level
of courts of first instance and of the courts of appeal. The policies taken are setting up the maximum
time for the courts to hear a case and make decision, applying court-annexed mediation program,
3
introducing chamber system in the SCRI, giving the public with access to information managed by
the courts, providing poor people with access to justice.
III. A. Establishing maximum time for the court to hear civil cases.
The Chief Justice has issued a circular letter that commands all hearing panels of judges to
deliver a decision within six month at maximum for civil cases. This circular letter particularly
applies at the general court. In the courts of first instance maximum time of six month is established
since the court process resume after litigants fail to reach settlement agreement through court-annexed
mediation. If a hearing panel of judges carries out court sessions beyond six month until making
decision of the case, the chairperson of the hearing panel has to report to the chief of the court of
appeal through the chief judge of the court of first instance concerned. Generally, the courts of first
instance are able to meet the established time. Six months as a maximum time to try a case does not
apply to cases that their time frame has been established by a statute. For example, the Act concerning
Bankruptcy has provided that the timeframe for each phase of trial in bankruptcy cases. The Act
concerning industrial relation also legislate the time frame for each phase of handling cases of
industrial relations.
The SCRI receives on average about 12.000 cases annually and its ability accomplish all cases
on average about 11.000-1200 cases from 2005-2009 but still faces backlog cases form the years
before 2005. In 2003, backlog cases at the SCRI reach more than 20.000 cases and gradually can be
reduced until 7.889 cases in 2010. Most of the cases are civil ones because decisions of the courts of
appeals can be challenged by litigants through cassation to the SCRI. Therefore, parties in civil cases
who are dissatisfied with the courts of appeals’ decisions always file cassations to the SCRI. The civil
cases enter cassation to the SCRI on average annually reach 32-35 % of the total number cases
brought before the SCRI. According to the Decree of Chief Justice number 138 of 2009, a case can be
put under the category of backlog cases if it is not decided by a panel of justices or a decision has
been made but not yet been sent back to the court of first instance concerned within one year since
the case is registered. The SCRI has a program for introducing a new article in the Act on Judicial
Power or the Act concerning the Supreme Court of Justice that provides a limitation of decisions of
civil cases can be challenged before the SCRI through cassation process on the basis of a monetary
value in a dispute. However, this program of course needs political support from the House of
Representatives and the President.
The Chief Justice also has issues a decree concerning the time frame or the schedule for
handling cases at the level of the SCRI, starting from the phase of the registration of a case until the
4
phase of sending back the decided case to the court of first instance concerned. Process of handling a
case at the SCRI includes the following phases: (1) scrutiny by the Directorate of Institution of Cases
to insure completeness of all documents or files of case, (2) registration of a case by the Registrar of
the SCRI, (3) Assignment of teams in charge of cases done by the Chief Justice, (4) distribution of
cases to chairpersons of teams by the chief justice; (4) the chairperson of team assigned a panel of
justices to read a case, (5) a panel of justices reading and deciding case (6) process of making of
minute by assistant of registrar and/ or by operator/clerk, (7) sending a decided case to the court of
first instance concerned. The decree of Chief Justice requires that the process of handling a case at the
Supreme Court have to be accomplished within one year since it is registered at the Registrar Unit of
the Supreme Court.
The working mechanism of a panel of justice at the SCRI is as follow. A panel comprises three
justices who are the first reader, the second reader and the third reader. The third reader is the
chairperson of a panel. The first reader is firstly assigned to read and give his or her opinion on a
case. After he or she makes his or her opinion on the case, all documents relevant to the case together
with the first reader’s opinion is given to the second reader. After the second reader gives his or her
opinion, all documents of the case together with the second reader’s opinion is submitted to the third
reader. After the third reader gives his or her opinion, he or she may invite the first and the second
readers to attend to a session where the panel officially delivers its decision on the case. If within the
maximum time stated by the decree of chief justice a case has not yet been decided, then it is
considered as a backlog case. The way of the SCRI to resolve backlog cases is that the chief justice
establishes a task force that comprises justices who have not backlog cases. The cases that are
considered as backlog cases are withdrawn from the justices who are initially assigned to read but not
able to accomplish within the time frame then the cases are distributed among a task force. Every year
chief justice summons all justices in a plenary session where chief justice presents an annual report of
achievement of justices individually or collectively. From this report everyone can see justices who
have high achievement and those who have very low achievement in accomplishing their tasks. So
there is no legal or administrative sanction for justices who perform their tasks very low, but there is
some kind of moral sanction through the annual report presented in a plenary session so that sluggish
justices are expected to feel embarrassed by their individual achievement.
III. B. Court-Annexed Mediation.
The Chief Justice in 2003 firstly issued Rules of the Supreme Court number 2 of 2003
concerning Court-Annexed Mediation then he issued the Rules of the Supreme Court number 1 of
2008 concerning Court-Annexed Mediation which replaces the former. The policy to introduce the
5
court-annexed mediation in civil cases is based upon at least two reasons. First, the Indonesian civil
procedural law requires hearing judges to order litigants in civil cases to reach settlement before the
hearing judges try cases. Annexed-court mediation is thus compulsory before judges to hear civil
cases except civil cases relating to bankruptcy, decisions of the Board of Resolving Disputes among
Producer and Consumer, decisions of the Commission of Supervision of Competition Law and labor
relations are not subject to mandatory court-annexed mediation. The reason is that handling of these
cases is subject to their own procedural laws. The procedural laws of these cases also provide options
for mediation process or settlement. Secondly, the SCRI also looks at the experiences of the
judiciaries of other countries which have been successfully in applying court-annexed mediation as
way of resolving court-congestion such as Japan, Singapore, USA and Australia. The success of
court-annexed mediation is also expected to reduce number of cases coming up to the SCRI because
mediated agreement cannot be challenged through cassation. The other reason - as it is often
mentioned in the literatures - for why many the judiciaries in various countries develop court-annexed
mediation programs is that because mediation is viewed as a less costly and timely efficient method
of dispute settlement. Therefore, nowadays many countries both which follow civil law system and
common law system have adopted court-annexed mediation.
Under the Indonesian court-annexed mediation program, a panel of judges who is assigned by
the Chief Judges of the court of first instance to hear civil cases obliges litigants to utilize firstly
mediation process. Thus, it is mandatory mediation. The judges adjourn court session to give a chance
to litigants to utilize mediation. Litigants have the right to choose one or more mediators from a list
of mediators available in the court of first instance. Those who are qualified to be mediator in courts
are lawyers or advocates, lectures of faculties of law, non-legal professionals or scholars and nonhearing judges and hearing judges who are certified by non-governmental organizations or faculties
of law that have been accredited by the SCRI to conduct mediation trainings. But, in case where in a
court there is no certified mediator and also no certified judges to be a mediator, any judge can
becomes a mediator in court. The Training Center for judges also conducts mediation training for
judges. Mediator non judges have the right to ask for professional fees to parties on the basis of
agreement. Judges, however, are not allowed to receive any fees or gift from parties for their services
as mediator. Since the promulgation of the court-annexed program the interests in mediation
increases, many people from different background of professions such lawyers, medical doctors,
sociologist, economists, engineers attended mediation trainings held by the organizations accredited
by the SCRI. Under the Indonesian legal system mediation can be used through court-annexed
mediation but also out of court. A number of statutory regimes such as the Environmental Act, the
6
Forestry Act, the Water Act, and the Act concerning Medical Professions also encourage parties to
settle their legal cases through mediation as an option before the case are brought before the courts.
Court-annexed mediation takes place for 40 working days in maximum and can be extended to
14 days if parties agree. If parties reach settlement agreement, parties can ask panel of judges to
incorporate it into court decision. A mediator can declare mediation fails even before 40 working
days are used up if one party or parties participate in early sessions but later never come to mediation
sessions. No sanction can be imposed for those who walk out from mediation sessions. If mediation
fails, a mediator reports to a panel of judges concerned and then court proceeding resumes. At any
phase of court proceeding in so far the judges have not yet delivered their decision and after failure
the first effort of mediation process, parties still have the right to settle their case with the help of the
hearing judges.
However, so far court-annexed mediation program in Indonesia has not been successful in term
of helping litigants to reach mediated agreements. The number of cases that are successfully settled
through court-annexed mediation is on average around 5 percent of the total cases entering every
general court of first instance. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss why court-annexed
mediation program has not been successful. An empirical and comprehensive research needs to be
carried out to find out reasons for why litigants in the Indonesian court often fail to reach agreement
in court-annexed mediation. A number of assumptions could be mentioned here. First, many lawyers
or advocates in Indonesian receive professional fees from their clients on hourly or timely basis. This
type of lawyers will not have incentives to convince their clients in order to utilize court-annexed
mediation effectively and seriously because they will receive less fees if a case they handle can be
settled quickly. It is understandable if they would rather handle the case through lengthy process,
from the court of first instance, to the court of appeal and finally up to the SCRI through cassation
and final review. Actually, an advocate or lawyer plays important role in making court-annexed
mediation is successful because he or she is the first person to whom a client usually talks about his or
her legal problems. If an advocate has strong vision about mediation then he or she will encourage his
or her client to utilize mediation firstly rather than go to litigation process. On the other hand, if they
do not have such vision but having strong litigation orientation, then clients are never adequately
educated about the benefits of mediation process. The second factor for why court-annexed mediation
is not successful is that litigants have not yet seen or appreciated mediator as a new profession or
skilled work that need to be paid as people would like to pay for legal services of advocate. The
reluctance of litigants to pay professional fees of mediator non-judges proves that professional
mediators are not marketable yet in Indonesia at this moment. At least if compared with the
7
willingness of the public to pay fees or lawyers, medical doctors and accountants, the Indonesian
public so far has not seen mediators as a full profession that need to be paid for their services. This is
why mediators in Indonesia perform their services as part time job besides their main jobs, as
lawyers, academician, medical doctors or activists of non-governmental organizations. As a result,
parties are reluctant to choose mediator non-judges because if they choose them, then they have to
pay for mediator services. Instead, they would rather choose judges as their mediator because they do
not have to pay mediator fees for judges.
On the other hand, as the third factor, many judges are reluctant to be serious mediator because
they still have to concentrate on their hearing tasks with the tight schedules. Such attitude of many
judges who do not really support the court-annexed mediation program see their main role as decision
makers not peace makers. This attitude or lack of vision about mediation among judges is partly due
to the lack of understanding of mediation because most of them did not attend mediation course when
they studied law. The Indonesian law schools just in the last ten years ago began to offer mediation
course or under the subject of alternative dispute resolution to law students. In addition, the training
center for judges due to budget limits is not able to conduct mediation trainings for all judges. The
fourth factor is that many courts do not have adequate rooms for mediation sessions due to a budget
problem. Lack of supporting physical facilities of course has direct effect on court-annexed mediation
programs. Last but not least, since court-annexed mediation program is applied on the basis of the
Rules of the Supreme Court and not by provisions of a statute or an act does not have strong binding
power. Discussions about to incorporate court-annexed mediation into the new civil procedural law
have been going on. It is the task of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights to prepare draft or bill of
the Indonesian new civil procedural law. Anyhow, the SCRI is still committed to develop and
implement the court-annexed mediation. The SCRI will establish the Mediation Center under the
Research and Training Institute of the SCRI. The function of the Mediation Center is to study, to
monitor, to make evaluation in development of court-annex mediation.
III. C. The Chamber system and specialization.
One of the judicial functions of the SCRI as the highest judicial institutions is to maintain legal
certainty and consistency. But The SCRI so far is still struggling in order to be able to perform this
strategic function well. Until the October 2011, the SCRI have not yet recognized a chamber system
but the justices are grouped into 12 teams: A, B.1, B2. C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K. Each team is led
by a chairperson of team. Chief justice, two vice chief justices, and nine junior chief justices hold
positions as chairperson of teams. A justice may become a member of more than one team. All teams
are authorized by the chief justice to read cases of general jurisdiction: civil and criminal cases. The
8
reason is that the biggest number of cases entering the SCRI annually is civil and criminal cases from
the general courts. These are about 82 percent of total cases entering the SCRI, while the rest are
cases from administrative courts, sharia court and military courts. Thus, in order to distribute the task
of reading cases among justices equally, justices with the background from administrative courts,
sharia courts and military courts civil and criminal cases are also assigned to read civil and criminal
cases regardless of their expertise background. Academic basis for allowing justices from other
jurisdiction to read cases in general court jurisdiction is that they have actually studied and graduated
from the general law schools as well. Therefore in order to overcome backlog cases especially cases
under the jurisdiction of general courts at the SCRI that may prolong parties to receive decisions of
their cases, the leadership of the SCRI allowed the justices from other jurisdictions to read civil and
criminal cases that annually comprises 82 % of the total number of cases entering the SCRI. To
December 2011 the total number of justices is 54 persons and according to law, the total number of
justices is sixty persons. Thus, there are always possibilities for justices with different background of
expertise may make different decisions for similar cases. The same possibilities for making different
decisions on similar cases may happen among justices coming from the general courts. Therefore it is
understandable if it is difficult for the SCRI to fulfill its function as the guardian of legal certainty and
consistency. In fact problem of legal uncertainty and inconsistency has happened. Of course, this
problem becomes the concern of not only the leadership of the SCRI but also the Indonesian legal
community as a whole. The viable solution is to establish a chamber system of the SCRI where
justices are grouped into five chambers: civil, criminal, sharia, administrative and military chambers.
Each chamber is led by junior chief justice. The assignment of a justice in particular chamber is based
upon their expertise. The expertise is based on their academic works, e.g. their thesis when they
studied law. Under the chamber system, a justice is assigned to read cases of their own chamber only.
The chamber system, however, will be strictly applied in 2014, from now to 2014 is considered as a
transitional period where justices from administrative, sharia and military chambers are still assigned
as a member of panel justices in the civil chamber. So in the future, recruitment of justices is based
upon need assessment taking into account of the number of cases entering the SCRI. As civil and
criminal cases comprise the biggest cases entering the SCRI, therefore, the number of justices in civil
and criminal chambers is the biggest ones. At this moment the number of justices in the civil chamber
is seven panels and in the criminal chamber is also seven panels.
In the present time, the chamber system has not been applied to the court of appeals. According
to the blueprint of 2010, however, in the court of appeals of general jurisdiction there will be two
chambers in 2014. These are civil and criminal chambers. In the court of first instances, chamber
9
system will not be developed. But under the current system in the court of first instances there have
been special courts that are as part of the general court of first instances, for example, special court of
corruption cases, of industrial relation cases, of forestry cases. But these special courts are not
established in all court of first instances all over the country but only in particular court of first
instances with general jurisdiction. In addition to the divisions, the SCRI also has established
specialization programs for judges. In 2011, the Chief Justice just promulgated the Decree concerning
certification for judges in hearing environmental cases.
III.D. Access to Justice
Access to justice is one of the tree national agenda which has been established in the
development plan Program. It is not only the court program but all governmental agencies have to
take into account in their institutional programs. As far as the court is concerned, the SCRI has issued
a number of policies. These include the following:
a. Making standard Operational Procedure for handling children having legal problems.
b. Strengthening capacity of the court in handling children having legal problems, inter alia,
providing judges with the concepts of diversion and restorative justice in handling children
having legal problems
c. Improving legal access for poor women and marginalized people in domestic legal cases, inter
alia: free of paying the cost of the court process, providing free of charges legal consultation or
advices, programming of mobile courts.
Under the statutory framework, children having legal problems are resolved through repressive and
criminal approaches. Since the introduction of concepts of diversion and restorative justice, judges
who are assigned to hear cases of children are allowed to use their discretion by encouraging parties
to use consensual approaches in resolving legal problems among children with the condition that
parent of children victim of misconduct by other children agree to use the consensual approaches so
that if they can reach settlement agreement the children who perpetrate misconduct to other children
do not have to be imprisoned.
Chief Justice also has issued a circular letter of 2010 concerning Legal Aid for the poor persons
who have legal problems in civil or criminal cases. The letter provides that in order to receive legal
aid program, one need to get a letter from the chief of village who declare he or she is a poor person
or one may make written statement that state one is a poor person. This written statement has to be
approved by a chief judge of the court of first instance where a poor person sues someone else or to
10
be sued by someone else in civil cases or whenever a poor person becomes a defendant in a criminal
proceeding.
The SCRI allocates funding or budget of legal aid for the poor people to each court of first
instance. The amount of budget allocated for each court of first instance is based upon the average
number of annual cases. So the court has more cases to hear receive more budget than the court has
less case to try. In 2010 the SCRI appointed 44 of the court of first instance as the pilot courts to carry
out legal aid program for the poor. The money received by poor people is used for the cost of lawyer
and for court fees in civil cases. As the amount of money for lawyers or advocates who give legal
services to the poor people are very limited, many professional lawyers are reluctant to take cases for
the poor people. Therefore, the SCRI has ordered the chief judge of the courts of first instance to
make cooperation with local legal aid institutions or deans of faculties of law as the way of resolving
the problem of the reluctant of professional lawyers to give legal services to the poor people. For
faculties of law, such cooperation with the courts will take benefits also because law lecturers who are
assigned to give legal services before the court can also ask his or her students to get involved in legal
aid programs. So students can also learn from their experiences of legal practices.
Mobile courts is one of the court programs relating to access to justice for the poor people to
undergo legal processes in order to pursue legal justice. By mobile court means instead of parties
coming to the court, it is judges and court officials who come to a village where parties in legal
dispute live. The successful experience of applying mobile court is the sharia court. Through mobile
court program, the sharia courts have been able to overcome obstacles faced by thousands of the poor
couples to get certificate of their marriages. It is a fact that marriages of many of poor couples in all
over the country are not officially registered. On the other hand, in order that their children obtain
certificates of birth, they need to show to the officials in charge of issuing certificates of birth their
certificates of marriages. A Certification of birth is needed for a child to enter school and also to enter
job markets whenever one is already mature. In addition, mobile court program of the sharia court
has significantly helped the poor Moslem women who have been left by their husbands for long time
without any certainty concerning their status of marriages. Thus the sharia courts through mobile
court program can make decisions that declare the poor women left by their husband for long time
without any news from their husbands are no longer in the status of marriage so that if they wish they
can marry again with someone else.
IV. The Electronic-based Management of Court
11
In order to support efforts to bring about simple, speedy, and less costly court process and
management into reality it is undeniable for the court to build electronic-based management. So far
the courts in Indonesia have not yet used the electronic technology in optimum way. They just use
computer to type information or data but have not yet utilized the benefits of electronic media to
fullest extent. Therefore, it is mentioned in the blueprint of 2010-2035 that computerized-base
management of the courts is developed in order to achieve the following goals:
a. Improving the quality of court decisions;
b. Providing the public with the access to information managed by the courts, such as court
decisions, personnel, budget, and assets;
c.
Strengthening of the court administration and services in relation case registration, providing
and court information,
d.
Building efficient working system of the court by replacing manual works with computerized
work processes;
e. Building achievement-based organization by using electronic technology as a means of
monitoring and surveillance of works;
f.
Building learning environment of the court by providing e-learning or long-distant learning
processes.
In pursuant to optimum use of technology in the court management in general and in case
management in particular, chief justice has issue circular letter number 14 of 2010 to all courts. This
circular letter provides, inter alia, the following policies:
-
Beginning March 2011 all documents, including decisions of the court of first instance and the
court of appeal in civil, sharia and administrative cases and the public prosecutor’s petition in
relation to cassation and final review sent to the SCRI have to be submitted to the SCRI together
with the electronic document for example in compact disk, or flash disk, or e-mail;
-
Whenever electronic documents are not attached to the file for cassation or final review to the
SCRI, the Directorate of Institution of the SCRI will declare the file is not adequate and have to
be returned to the relevant court;
-
The chief judge of the courts of first instances and or of the courts of appeals in all jurisdiction
have to encourage all litigants to submit electronic documents together with hard copies of their
petitions;
-
Chief judges of the courts of first instances and of the courts of appeals in all jurisdictions are
commanded to insure that the working units under their control to do the following:
a. To manage the court decisions in electronic forms regularly;
12
b. To compliance with this policy concerning submission or sending of electronic documents to
the SCRI in relation to cassation and final review;
c. To do monitoring and evaluation in relation to compliance with the chief justice’s policy
concerning submission or sending of electronic documents to the SCRI in relation to
cassation and final review.
Thus, the Chief Justice’s Circular Letter number 14 of 2010 actually is also method of delivering
speedy and efficient court decisions to the justice seekers. However, since this policy is set up in the
circular letter only the binding power to parties is rather weak. In the future, the Indonesia law makers
(the House of the Representatives and the President) also need to think of changing the current
procedural laws in all court jurisdictions to require all courts, litigants, the public prosecutors to use
and submit electronic documents in the process of litigation in all levels so it will have more binding
power to all actors involved in the litigation or court processes.
In addition, the informative technology also support the court management in relation to
providing the public with access to court information such as court decisions, personnel, budget,
programs, policies in pursuant to the Act number 14 of 2008 concerning the Public Information.
According to this Act all state institutions, including the judiciary, are obliged to provide the public
with the access to the public information they manage except for information that is exemption under
the Act. One of methods or means to facilitate the public in order to get the court information is by
building website. Through websites people can have access to court information such as decisions,
promulgated policies, budget, personnel, supervision reports, and non-judicial activities of the courts.
The SCRI has built its website. In order to facilitate the public to have access to the court information
and to guide the courts officials and clerks in providing the public with the court information, chief
justice has issued the Decree number 1-144 of 2011 concerning the Guidelines for the Public Access
to the Court Information.
The following table describes the number of courts of first instances in the four jurisdictions: general
courts, sharia courts, administrative courts and military courts that have built their websites and
whether their websites are active or not. This figures based upon data of 2011.
Jurisdiction
General Courts
Sharia Courts
Administrative
Courts
Military Courts
Number of the
courts
381
388
30
7
Active websites
Not Active
No Website
251
346
22
90
26
8
40
16
0
5
2
1
13
Total
829
645
127
57
V. Closed Remarks.
The Indonesian judiciary has carried out a number of reform programs in order to bring about
the idea of efficient and effective court processes. The programs such as court transparency and
access to justice for the poor people through mobile courts have made some significant progress of
the judiciary performance in giving services to the justice seekers in particular and to the public in
general. Most civil cases can accomplished within the maximum time, six months, established by the
Circular letter of the Chief Justice. The SCRI is also relatively successful in reducing backlog cases
from about 20.000 cases in 2003 to about 8.000 cases 8.000. In order to maintain legal consistency
and certainty, the SCRI also has established the chamber system since October 2011 and will be
strictly applied in 2014. The development of electronic-base management is also expecting to speed
up delivery of court decisions or litigation processes. The court-annexed mediation program has not
been so successful in reducing the number of court coming to the SCRI. Experiences of the judiciaries
of other ASEAN countries may be useful to learn and to take into consideration in the future reform
programs of the Indonesian judiciary.
REFERENCES
The Blueprint of Reform of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, 2003, published by the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (the Indonesian Edition, 2003).
The Blueprint of Reform of the Judiciary, 2010-2035, published by the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Indonesia, 2010 (the Indonesian Edition, 2010).
The Annual Report of 2010 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, published by the
Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (the Indonesian Edition, February 2011).
The National Strategy of the Access to Justice, published by the Indonesian National Development
Planning Agency, BAPPENAS, (the Indonesian Edition, May 2009).
14
15