EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2011 Republic of Indonesia Supreme
Court Annual Report
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 1
1
DR. Harifin A. Tumpa, SH., MH.
Chief Justice Of Supreme Court RI
H. Abdul Kadir Mappong, SH.
Vice Chief Justice of Supreme Court RI for
Judicial Matters
ahunan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia 2009
A. UNSUR
PIMPINAN
Vice Chief
Justice of Supreme
Court RI
M
DR. H. Ahmad Kamil, SH.,
M.Hum.
Vice Chief Justice of Supreme Court RI Non
Drs. H. AHMAD KAMIL, SH.,H.M.Hum.
ABDUL KADIR
Judicial MAPPONG, SH
Wakil Ketua Mahkamah Agung
WakilRIKetua
Bidang
Mahkamah Agung RI Bidang Y
Non Yudisial
sia
DR. HARIFIN A. TUMPA, SH, MH
Ketua Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia
H. ABDUL KADIR MAPPONG, SH.
Wakil Ketua Mahkamah Agung RI Bidang Yudisal
Laporan Tahunan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia 2
L KADIR MAPPONG, SH.
ahkamah Agung RI Bidang Yudisal
DR. HARIFIN A. TUMPA, S
Ketua Mahkamah Agung Republi
LEADERSHIP OF SUPREME COURT RI
Drs. H. AHMAD KAMIL, SH., M.Hum.
Wakil Ketua Mahkamah Agung RI Bidang
Non Yudisial
Prof. DR. Paulus Effendi Lotulung, SH.
Deputy Chief Justice for State Administration
field of Supreme Court of RI
Drs. H. Andi Syamsu Alam, SH., MH.
Deputy of Chief Justice of Religious of
Supreme Court RI
JAJA, SH
Umum MA RI
Djoko Sarwoko, SH., MH.
Deputy Chief Justice for Special Crime of
Supreme Court RI
H. Atja Sondjaja, SH.
Deputy Chief Justice for Civil law Cases
of Supreme Court of RI
H. ATJA SONDJAJA, SH
DJOKO SARWOKO, SH., MH.
Ketua
Muda Perdata Umum MA RI
Ketua Muda Pidana Khusus MA RI
viii
H.
Laporan Tahunan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia 20
LUS EFFENDI
LOTULUNG,
SH. LOTULUNG, SH.
PROF. DR.
PAULUS EFFENDI
Drs. H. ANDI SYAMSU
SH., MH.ALAM
Drs. H.ALAM,
ANDI SYAMSU
rusan Lingkungan
Peradilan
Ketua Muda
UrusanTata
Lingkungan Peradilan Tata
Ketua Muda Agama Ketua
MA RIMuda Agama MA
Usaha Negara MA RI Usaha Negara MA RI
DR. H. Artidjo Alkostar, SH., LLM.
Deputy Chief Justice for General Crime of
Supreme Court RI
Dr. H. ARTIDJO ALKOSTAR, SH., LLM.
Ketua Muda Pidana Umum MA RI
H.M. HA
Ketua Mud
kamah Agung Republik Indonesia 2009
H. ATJA SONDJAJA, SH
Ketua Muda Perdata Umum MA RI
LEADERSHIP OF SUPREME COURT RI
Dr. H. ARTIDJO ALKOSTAR, SH., LLM.
H.M. HATTA ALI, SH. M
ARTIDJO ALKOSTAR, SH., LLM.
H.M. HATTA ALI, SH. MH
Ketua Muda Pengawasan MA
Ketua Muda Pidana Umum MA RI
Ketua Muda Pengawasan MA RI
tua Muda Pidana Umum MA RI
M.
H. M. Hatta Ali, SH., MH.
Deputy Chief Justice of Supervision of
Supreme Court RII
Widayatno Sastrohardjono, SH., MSe.
Deputy Chief For Organising and
Development of Supreme Court of RI
H.M. HATTA ALI, SH.
MH
WIDAYATNO
SASTRO HARDJONO, SH., MSC
Ketua Muda Pengawasan MA RI
Ketua Muda Pembinaan MA RI
ix
DR. H. Mohammad Saleh, SH., MH.
Deputy Chief Justice for Special Civil Law
Cases of Supreme Court RI
H. M. Imron Anwari, SH., SpN., MH.
Chief Military of Supreme Court RI
H.M. IMRON
ANWARI,
SH. Sp
H.M. IMRON ANWARI,
SH. SpN.
MH.
MSC
Dr. H.
MOHAMMAD
MOHAMMAD
SALEH,
SH., MH. SALEH, SH., MH.
Ketua
Muda
Unsur
Lingkungan
Perad
Ketua
Muda
Khusus MA
RI Muda Unsur Lingkungan Peradilan Militer
tua Muda PidanaKetua
Khusus
MA Pidana
RI
MA RI
MA RI
.
H.M. IMRON ANWARI, SH. SpN. MH.
Ketua Muda Unsur Lingkungan Peradilan Militer
MA RI
ECHELON ONE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
CHAPTER
1
JUDICIAL REFORM
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 1
7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2011 Republic of Indonesia Supreme
Court Annual Report
Chapter I
JUDICIAL REFORM
A journey of a thousand Li starts with a single step
(Lao Tzu, Chinese Philosopher)
M
any breakthroughs have been made on the road to achieving our vision
and mission for the judicial system. These include many significant
and substantive reforms. In response to these reforms, the RI Supreme
Court received positive responses both from the public and institutions
in other countries.
One expression of appreciation was provided by the Central Information Commission,
which lauded the RI Supreme Court as the sixth best public institution as regards
openness of information through its website. This was out of 82 public institutions
monitored during 2010-2011.
In this Annual Report, we described our various breakthroughs and achievements,
including the following:
I. CASE MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
In general, the performance of the Supreme Court in discharging its principal
function, namely, deciding and adjudicating cases, improved during the course
of 2011. Despite a decline in the overall number of cases that were disposed
of, the court’s clearance rate during 2011 amounted to 117.19%. With 12,990
incoming cases in 2011, the Supreme Court managed to send by 15,223 cases
to the originating courts. This is a very significant achievement as it means that
the backlog of cases in the Supreme Court has started to be reduced, despite
the number of incoming cases having increased sharply in recent years. This
shows the success of the systemic efforts that have been made to improve our
summarization methods, and the monitoring and evaluation efforts that were
conducted by the Supreme Court over the course of 2011.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 1
8
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF CHAMBER SYSTEM IN RI SUPREME
COURT
The introduction of a chamber system in the Supreme Court represents a
significant step forward. The important objectives of the introduction of a chamber
system are as follows:
1. To help develop the expertise of the judges as each judge will only hear and
adjudicate cases that come within his or her special areas of competence
and expertise.
2. To help improve productivity in the handling of cases as each judge will deal
with a similar type of case which in the end will lead to greater consistency.
3. To facilitate supervision of decisions for the purpose of maintaining legal
integrity. If we can improve legal consistency, then it is expected that the
number of unnecessary appeals coming before the Supreme Court in
cassation may be reduced.
In order to implement the chamber system, the Supreme Court has issued
Supreme Court Directive No. 142/KMA/SK/IX/2011 on the application of a
chamber system in the Supreme Court. This Directive was issued on 19
September 2011, and is accompanied by a number of other relevant directives.
III. ACCESS TO JUSTICE
1. Access to judicial decisions
At the end of 2011, the total number of decisions had increased more than
sixfold so as to stand at more than 150,000. The decisions that can be
accessed by the public at http://decidedan.mahkamahagung.go.id are not
confined to Supreme Court decisions in cassation or final reviews alone, but
also include are decisions at first instance and on appeal in all four court
jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court uses a system that helps ensure that smooth operation
of case summarization, while at the same time providing public access and
an electronic repository – the first to be maintained by a judicial body.
2. Access to Information
With the coming into effect of Law No. 14 of 2008 on Freedom of Information,
the Supreme Court has amended Supreme Court Directive Number 144/
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 1
9
KMA/VII/2007 on freedom of information through the issuance of Supreme
Court Directive Number 1-144/KMA/SK/I/2011 on guidelines for the provision
of information in the courts. The Supreme Court has also issued Supreme
Court Regulation No. 02 of 2011 on procedures for the resolution of disputes
over public information in the judicial system.
One of the purposes of this Supreme Court Regulation is to ensure that
the public rights that arise as a result of disputes over information in the
Information Commission can be properly upheld.
3. Legal Aid and Assistance to the Poor and Marginalized
In order to improve access to justice on the part of the poor and marginalized,
at the end of 2010 the Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Circular
Number 10 of 2010 on guidelines for the provision of legal aid. The provision
of legal aid commenced at the start of 2011.
As of the end of December 2011, the Legal Aid Center in the Religious Courts
had handled 34,647 beneficiaries, or 300% of the original target of 11,553
beneficiaries, with Rp 4,053,968,138 of the total budget of Rp 4,152,000,000
having been spent.
The amply demonstrates the success of the Legal Aid Center program and
the high level of demand on the part of the poor and marginalized to access
justice.
The provision of legal aid in the District Courts is still at the development
stage. In August 2011, the Director General of Public Courts issued Director
General’s Directive Number 1/DJU/OT.01.3/VIII/2011, which sets out
guidelines for the provision of legal aid in criminal cases, while guidelines for
the implementation of legal aid in civil cases and the establishment of legal
aid centers are still at the development stage. It is planned that the Director
General of Public Courts will conduct trials involving the establishment of
legal aid centers in 39 courts in 2012.
In collaboration with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Supreme Court has
commenced solemnizing the marriages of Indonesian migrant workers.
Based on Supreme Court Directive No. 084/2011 on permission for the
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 1
10
solemnization of marriages in Indonesia representative offices, dated
25 May 2011, the Central Jakarta Religious Court conducted marriage
solemnization ceremonies in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia, for the first
time ever on 25 May 2011. Held in collaboration with the RI consulate
general in Kota Kinabalu, the Central Jakarta Religious Court considered
a total of 367 previously unofficial marriages, out of which figure 336 were
officialized. Meanwhile, of the remaining cases, 27 could not be officialized
as the petitioners failed to show up, 4 applications were rejected as the cases
involved divorce proceedings that were currently underway in Indonesia,
while the application was rejected as the husband was married twice.
IV. ROLE OF THE SUPREME COURT IN INTERNATIONAL
FORUMS
IN March 2011, the Supreme Court was selected to serve as host of the first
ever Asia Pacific regional conference of the International Association of Court
Administrators (IACA), which was attended by more than 70 delegates from 19
countries, including six chief justices, as well as more than 70 local delegates.
The IACA Conference was held at the Bogor State Palace in West Java and was
opened by RI President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
On 19 September 2011, a delegation from the Government of Bangladesh visited
the Supreme Court in connection with the establishment of an anticorruption court
in Bangladesh, which has already made many of the necessary preparations by
enacted an Anticorruption Act.
In November 2011, the RI Supreme Court was once again honored to act as
the host of the Roundtable Meeting of ASEAN Chief Justices on Environment.
The event, which was conducted in collaboration with the Asian Development
Bank and the United Nations Environment Programme, marked a first step
towards harmonization law enforcement in the environmental field among judicial
institutions in ASEAN.
On 16 November 2011, the Chief Justice of Sudan, Mr Galal Ed Dien Muhammed
Othman, visited the RI Supreme Court and signed an MoU on collaboration in the
judicial sphere, which in essence concerned the exchange of judicial information
and experiences.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 1
11
The Chief Justice of the RI Supreme Court visited the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad)
of the Netherlands at the end of November 2011 for the purpose of sounding out
the possibility of closer collaboration between the two Supreme Courts.
V. STRENGTHENING THE REFORM PROGRAM
The implementation of reform in the Supreme Court in 2011 commenced
receiving funding from the National Budget. This marked a change from previous
years, where much of the reform program was funded by overseas donors.
VI.BUREAUCRATIC REFORM
The Supreme Court has identified bureaucratic reform as one of its priorities. On
2 May 2011, the Supreme Court Chief Justice issued Supreme Court Directive
Number 71/KMA/SK/V/2011 on the Bureaucratic Reform Committee, which has
the overall objective of encouraging the implementation of bureaucratic reform
as expeditiously as possible, particularly as regards preparing quality assurance
processes.
In mid 2011, the Supreme Court conducted a preparatory assessment survey on
bureaucratic reform. One of the questionnaires employed as part of this process
focused on elements of wave two of the bureaucratic reform process. These
were distributed to all courts so as to identify the preparedness of all units for
implementing the quality assurance process.
VII.INTERNAL SUPERVISION AND UPHOLDING OF
BEHAVIORAL AND RECRUITMENT STANDARDS
The Supreme Court is continuing to conduct internal supervision on a regular
basis and to seek ways of encouraging greater integrity in the judicial institutions.
During the course of 2011, the Supreme Court Supervisory Board received a total
of 3,232 complaints, with 2,833 of these coming from the public, 258 from other
institutions, and 141 received online through http://www.mahkamahagung.go.id/
di_web3/index.asp.
Of these complaints, 38% of them were found not to merit further action. Of those
in respect of which action was taken, 35% were responded to by letter, and only
around 6% were found to merit follow-up action by the Supervisory Board. The
remainder were delegated to the courts of first instance and appeal, or delegated
internally, or combined. A total of 188 cases are still being examined.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 1
12
In 2011, a total of 43 court officials were subjected to severe disciplinary measures,
22 to medium disciplinary measures, and 62 to light disciplinary measures, while
3 officials from the Military Courts received punishments, with 2 of them receiving
reprimands and 1 being detained for a short period. Of the total number of 130
court officials that received sanctions, the majority (38%) were justices, 19.6%
court staff and 11.8% deputy registrars.
Meanwhile, as regards the types of offenses committed, the most common
were violations of disciplinary regulations (53.85%), followed by unprofessional
conduct (20.77%), and violations of the ethical code (13.85%).
In 2011, the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission convened the
Judicial Disciplinary Council on four occasions, with 1 justice being dismissed
dishonorably, one being dismissed honorably, 1 transferred to non-judicial duties
and one being given a written reprimand.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 1
13
CHAPTER
2
CASE MANAGEMENT
Chapter II
CASE MANAGEMENT
I. REFORM AGENDA
The year 2011 marks the second milestone year of achieving judicial reform as
set out in the 2010-2035 Judicial Reform Blueprint. In the context of discharging
the principal duties of the courts, the reform effort is focused on reform of
technical functions and case management. The technical functions focus is
directed at revitalizing the functions of the Supreme Court as the highest court in
the land so as to ensure judicial unity and revitalize the functions of the courts as
regards ensuring public access to justice. Meanwhile, reform in the field of case
management is directed at ensuring the realization of the Supreme Court’s two
missions: first, ensuring certainty and justice for those who come to the courts;
and, second, improving the particularly and credibility of the judicial bodies.
The strategic measures that are being taken so as to bring about reform of
the technical functions are as follows: Limited the number of cases being heard
in cassation and on final review; applying the chamber system in a consistent
manner; simplifying procedural processes and strengthening access to justice.
Meanwhile, as regards reform in the case management domain, the measures
to be instituted are as follows: modernization of case management; and
reorganization of case management and case management processes.
II. OUTSTANDING CASES IN THE RI SUPREME COURT
1. Outstanding Cases in the Supreme Court in 2011
The Supreme Court received a total of 12,990 cases, marking a decline of
3.64% from 2010, when a total of 13,480 cases were received. The number
of cases outstanding at the end of 2010 amounted to 8,424, meaning that
the Supreme Court had a caseload of 21,414 in 2011. This marked a decline
of 4.04% compared with the previous year, when the number was 22,315
cases.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
15
Table 1
Cases in the RI Supreme Court in 2011
Outstanding
End of 2010
Incoming
2011
Total
Caseload
Decided
Outstanding
Cassation
6,479
10,336
16,815
10.968
5.805
2
Final reviews
1,935
2,540
4,475
2.648
1,827
3
Clemency
10
64
74
57
17
4
Judicial
Review
-
50
50
46
4
8,424
12,990
21,414
13,719
7.695
221
221
221
0
221
221
221
0
No
Jurisdiction
A.
Cases
1
Total
B
Non-Case
Petitions
for Legal
Opinions
(Fatwa)
Total
-
The decline in the number of cases received by the Supreme Court in 2011
marked the first such decline in the last decade. Previously, the number of
cases received by the Supreme Court had always been increasing. This
phenomenon is the reverse of what happened in the Courts of First Instance
and Appellate Courts, where the number of cases received increased by
70.60%. The decline in the number of cases coming before the Supreme
Court despite the increase in the number of cases received by the Courts of
First Instance and Appellate Courts shows that the level of satisfaction on
the part of the public with decisions of the lower courts is increasing.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
16
Figure 1
Cases Received by the Supreme Court over Last Decade
Of all the cases received by the Supreme Court, appeals in cassation were
predominant at 78.52%. These were followed by final reviews on 20.90%.
Meanwhile, petitions for clemency and judicial review amounted respectively
to only 0.35% and 0.23% of all cases received.
As regards productivity, the Supreme Court decided a total of 13,719 cases
in 2011. This marked a decline of 1.24% compared with the previous year,
when the number amounted to 13,891 cases. However, when compared
with the overall number of cases handled in 2011, the ratio of decided cases
stood at 64.07%, an increase over the previous year, when the same figure
was 62.25%.
Meanwhile, the backlog of cases at the end of 2011 stood at 7,695, a decline
of 8.65% compared with the previous year, when the figure was 8,424.
A comparison of the cases received by the Supreme Court by type of case
and jurisdiction in 2010 and 2011 is as shown in the following table:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
17
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
18
434
Special Criminal
Religious/Civil
Military
State
Administrative
4
5
6
7
Total
225
Criminal
3
10.844
688
2.855
2.227
1.062
Special Civil
2
3.353
Cassation
Civil
Type of Case
1
No
2.283
799
5
89
217
189
193
791
Final
Review
292
0
1
0
219
72
0
0
Clemency
2010
61
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
HUM
13.480
1.294
231
777
3.291
2.488
1.255
4.144
Total
10.336
422
258
670
2.658
2.310
853
3.165
Cassation
Cases Received by the Supreme Court in 2011 by Type of Case and Jurisdiction
Table 2
2.540
1.020
19
77
281
145
174
824
Final
Review
64
0 41
23
clemency
2011
50
50
HUM
12.990
1.492
277
747
2.980
2.478
1.027
3.989
Total
-3.64%
15.30%
19.91%
-3.86%
-9.45%
-0.40%
-18.17%
-3.74%
% Total
2010 vs
2011
The Supreme Court’s productivity ratio in deciding cases during 2011, as
shown by a comparison between the number of cases before the Supreme
Court and the number decided in 2011, is as shown in the following table:
Table 3
Supreme Court Productivity in Deciding Cases During 2011 by Type of Case
Backlog
2010
Incoming
Total
Caseload
Decided
Out
standing
%
Decided
3,313
3,989
7,302
4,321
2,981
59.18%
502
1,027
1,529
1,188
341
77.70%
Criminal
1,500
2,478
3,978
2,505
1,473
62.97%
Special Criminal
1,899
2,980
4,879
3,319
1,560
68.03%
Civil / Religious
20
747
767
603
164
78.62%
Military
77
277
354
259
95
73.16%
1,113
1,492
2,605
1,524
1,081
58.50%
8,424
12,990
21,414
13,719
7,695
64.07%
Type of Case
Civil
Special Civil
State
Administrative
Total
There now follows a more detailed description of the cases that come with
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
a. Appeals in Cassation
1) General Description
The Supreme Court received a total of 10,336 appeals in cassation
during 2011. This figure marked a decline of 5.22% compared with
the previous year, when the figure was 10,905 cases. With the
backlog of cases at the end of 2010 standing at 6,479, this meant
that the Supreme Court had a cassation caseload of 16,815 cases
in 2011 (78.52% of all cases).
Of the said 16,815 cases, the Supreme Court successfully disposed
of 10,986, which marked a decline of 9.75% compared with the
previous year, when the figure was 6,479.
The ratio of cassation disposal ratio in 2011, based on a comparison
between the number of cases decided and the number of cases
handled, stood at 65.23%. This marked an increase of 1.78%
compared with the previous year, when the figure was 63.45%.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
19
The situation as regards cassation cases by type of cases is as
shown in the following table:
Table 4
Number of Cassation Cases Handled by the Supreme Court in 2011
Backlog
Incoming
Total
Caseload
Decided
Outstanding
%
Decided
2.601
3165
5.766
3.350
2.416
58.10%
409
853
1.262
970
292
76.86%
Criminal
1.400
2310
3.710
2.336
1.374
62.96%
Special
Criminal
1.689
2658
4.347
3.007
1.340
69.17%
Civil/Religious
11
670
681
534
147
78.41%
Type of Case
Civil
Special Civil
Military
73
258
331
248
83
74.92%
State
Administrative
296
422
768
523
199
68.10%
Total
6.479
10.336
16.865
10.968
5.851
65.03%
Of the 10,968 cassation appeals handled in 2011, the Supreme
Court refused to allow 7,947 (68.35%), allowed 2,052 (18.21%) and
declined to hear 1,419 (11.94%).
No
Type of Case
Number of
Decisions
Granted
Decision
Rejected
3.350
479
2.769
102
970
193
647
130
No
1
Civil
2
Special Civil
3
Criminal
2.336
410
1.339
527
4
Special Criminal
3.007
745
1.764
500
5
Civil Religious
534
79
413
42
6
Military
248
38
156
54
7
Administrative
523
73
386
64
10.968
2.015
7.534
1.419
Total
Description
The following chart shows the breakdown of Supreme Court
decisions in cassation cases in 2011:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
20
Figure 2
Supreme Court Decisions in Cassation Cases
b. Final review
The Supreme Court received a total of 2,540 applications for final
reviews in 2011. This figure marked an increase of 11.26% compared
with the previous year, when the figure was 2,283
cases.
A
total of 1,935 applications for final reviews had yet to be heard at the
end of 2010, meaning that the Supreme Court’s final review caseload in
2011 amounted to 4,475 cases (20.90% of total cases).
Of the said 4,475 cases, the Supreme Court successfully disposed of
2,648 cases. This figure marked an increase of 13.26% compared with
the previous year, when the figure was 2,336 cases.
As of 31 December 2011, a total of 1,827 applications for final reviews
had yet to be disposed of. This figure marked a decline of 5.58%
compared with the previous year, when the figure was 1,935.
The final review disposal ratio in 2011, based on a comparison between
the number of cases decided and the number of cases handled, stood
at 59.17%. This marked an increase of 4.48% compared with the
previous year, when the figure was 54.69%.
The situation regarding final reviews based on the type of case is as
shown in the following table:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
21
Table 6
Number of final review cases handled by the Supreme Court in 2011
Out
standing
In
coming
caseload
decided
Outstanding
%
decidedd
Civil
712
824
1,536
971
565
63.22%
Special Civil
93
174
267
218
49
81.65%
Criminal
97
145
242
154
88
63.64%
Special
Criminal
204
281
485
271
214
55.88%
Civil Religious
9
77
86
69
17
80.23%
Criminal
Military
3
19
22
10
12
45.45%
Administrative
817
1,020
1,837
955
882
51.99%
Total
1,935
2,540
4,475
2,648
1,827
59.17%
Type of Case
As regards administrative cases, a total of 1,667 of these were tax cases
(90.75%).
Table 7
Decisions in which Requests for Final Reviews were Received
Type of Case
Decisions in Which Petitions for Final Reviews were Received
Cassation
Appeal
First Instance
Total
Civil
740
49
35
824
Special Civil
154
-
20
174
Criminal
116
16
13
145
Special Criminal
232
14
35
281
Civil Religious
60
2
15
77
Criminal Military
17
1
1
19
137
26
857
1.020
1.456
108
976
2.540
57.32%
4.25%
38.43%
State Administrative
Total
%
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
22
Figure 3
Description of Cases in Which Final Reviews were Sought
Of the 2,648 requests for final reviews handled in 2011, the Supreme
Court refused to allow 2,208 (83.38%), allowed 305 (11.52%) and
declined to hear 135 (5.10%), as shown in the table below:
Table 8
Decision in Final Review Petitions in 2011
No
Type of Case
Number of
Cases
Decision
Allowed
Rejected
No
1
Civil
971
116
815
40
2
Special Civil
218
45
164
9
3
Criminal
154
23
111
20
4
Special Criminal
271
50
200
21
5
Civil Religious
69
4
55
10
6
Military
10
1
9
0
7
Administrative
955
66
854
35
Total
2648
305
2208
135
11.52%
83.38%
5.10%
%
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
23
Figure 4
Supreme Court Decisions in Petitions for Final Review, 2011
c. Judicial Review Petitions
The Supreme Court received 50 Petitions for Judicial Reviews (judicial
reviews of compliance of statutory instruments with higher legislation).
Of the 50 petitions that were received, 46 were disposed of, leaving 4
outstanding. This figure marked a decline of 18.03% compared with the
previous year, when the figure was 61 cases. The details are as shown
in the following table:
Table 9
Type of Instrument and Number of Judicial Review Petitions received by Supreme
Court in 2011
No
Classification
Number
(%)
1
Ministerial Regulation
17
34.00%
2
Government Regulation
8
16.00%
3
Local government Regulation
6
12.00%
4
Ministerial Decree
4
8.00%
5
Gubernatorial Regulation
4
8.00%
6
KPU Decision
2
4.00%
7
Bupati’s Directive
2
4.00%
8
Circular
2
4.00%
9
Presidential Decree
1
2.00%
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
24
10
KPU Regulation
1
2.00%
11
Gubernatorial Decree
1
2.00%
12
Joint Directive of Supreme Court Chief Justice and
Judicial Commission
1
2.00%
13
Supreme Court Regulation
1
2.00%
TOTAL
50
100.00%
The disposal ratio of Judicial Review petitions in 2011 stood at 92%.
d. Petitions for Clemency
Table 10
Petitions for Clemency Dealt with by the Supreme Court in 2011
Type of Case
Backlog
Incoming
Caseload
Decided
Outstanding
General Criminal
3
23
26
15
11
Special Criminal
6
41
47
41
6
Military Criminal
1
0
1
1
-
Total
10
64
74
57
17
In the particular instance of petitions related to special criminal cases,
a total of 41 such petitions were received in 2011, of which 35 were
considered. Of these 35, 27 (77.14%) were rejected and 8 (22.86%)
were allowed.
e. Applications for Legal Opinions (Fatwa)
Based on article 37 of the Supreme Court Law (Law No. 14 of 1985),
as amended by Law Number 5 of 2004, and the Second Amendment
of Law No. 3 of 2009, the Supreme Court may provide clarifications,
considerations and advice on legal issues to state and governmental
institutions. In 2011, the Supreme Court received a total of 221
applications for legal opinions, of which 14 have already been responded
to by the Supreme Court while the remainder are still in process or failed
to satisfy the requirements.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
25
2. Case Management Performance in 2011
The Supreme Court uses two indicators in assessing its case management
performance. First, the cases disposal ratio, also known as the clearance
rate, that is, the comparison between the total number of incoming and
outgoing cases. It may be said that the Supreme Court is performing well
if the clearance rate is a minimum of 100%. The setting of a minimum
clearance rate of 100% is necessary due to the continuing backlog problem
in the Supreme Court.
Second, a continuing erosion in the size of the backlog. This second indicator
is a logical consequence of the first. With a minimum ratio that is equal to
or greater than the number of incoming and decided cases, this will result
in the number of backlogged cases declining. The Supreme Court may be
said to be performing well if the number of outstanding or backlogged cases
shows a decline compared with the previous period.
a. Case Examination
The Supreme Court’s caseload in 2011 stood at 21,414. This figure
consisted of 8,424 cases left over from 2010, and a total of 12,990 new
cases received in 2011. Of the total number of cases, the Supreme
Court managed to decide 13,719 cases, or 61.95%. This figure marked
a decline of 4.50% compared with the previous year, when the figure
was 13,891 cases.
Figure 5
Number of Cases Decided by RI Supreme Court during 2004-2011
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
26
The details of the cases decided by the Supreme Court in 2011 by type
of case and jurisdiction are as shown in the following table:
Table 11
Cases Decided by the Supreme Court in 2011 based on Type of Case and Jurisdiction
No
Type of Case
Cassation
Final
review
Clemency
HUM
3.350
971
970
218
Total
%
4.321
31.50%
1.188
8.66%
1
Civil
2
Special Civil
3
Criminal
2.336
154
15
2.505
18.26%
4
Special
Criminal
3.007
271
41
3.319
24.19%
5
Special
Religious
534
69
603
4.40%
6
Military
248
10
1
259
1.89%
7
Administrative
523
955
46
1.524
11.11%
Total
10.968
2.648
57
46
13.719
%
79.95%
19.30%
0.42%
0.34%
The time needed by the Supreme Court to decide cases is as shown in
the following table:
Table 12
Time Needed by Supreme Court to Decide Cases in 2011
No
Type of Case
1
Civil
2
Special Civil
3
Length of Time (in years)
<1
1-2
Total
>2
1.522
2.311
488
4.321
722
463
3
1.188
Criminal
1.554
818
133
2.505
4
Special Criminal
1.875
1.208
236
3.319
5
Special Religious
557
45
1
603
6
Military
191
67
1
259
7
Administrative
687
590
247
1.524
Total
7.108
5.502
1.109
13.719
51.81%
40.10%
8.08%
%
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
27
The tables above and below show that of the 12,990 cases received
by the Supreme Court in 2011, 7,108 were successfully decided. This
means that 54.72% were decided in the same year. This data also shows
that of the 13,719 cases decided during 2011, 42.36% were listed in the
same year.
The following table provides figures for decided cases listed in 2011:
Table 13
Decided Cases Listed in 2011
Type of Case
Total
Incoming
Decided
Outstanding
% decided
Civil
3989
1522
2467
38.15%
Special Civil
1027
722
305
70.30%
Criminal
2478
1554
924
62.71%
Special Criminal
2980
1875
1105
62.92%
Special Religious
747
557
190
74.56%
Criminal Military
277
191
86
68.95%
1492
687
805
46.05%
12990
7108
5882
54.72%
Administrative
Total
Meanwhile, the following figure shows the number of cases decided per
month during 2011:
Figure 6
Cases Decided by Month During 2011
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
28
b. Case Disposal
In 2011, the Supreme Court received 12,990 cases, and returned 15,223
cases to the originating courts. Thus, the case clearance ratio in 2011
was 117.19%. This marked the highest level in the last five years.
The number of cases being sent back to the originating courts in 2011
experienced a 4.16% increase over the figure for 2011 , which stood at
14,662.
Over the last five years, the number of cases being disposed of by
the Supreme Court has shown an continuously increasing trend. This
has been due to, among other things, the policy that requires the
submission of electronic documentation for every appeal in cassation
and final review. In addition, improvements in forwarding cases, such as
in the speed of summarization and filing, have been introduced by the
Supreme Court Registry. The following table shows the case clearance
rates for the last five years:
Table 14
Case Clearance Rate for Period 2007-2011
No.
Year
Incoming
Outgoing
%
1
2007
9.516
10.554
110,91
2
2008
11.338
9.351
82
3
2009
12.540
14.483
114,68
4
2010
13.480
14.662
108,77
5
2011
12.990
15.223
117,19
c. Situation Regarding Outstanding Cases and Case Backlog
The Supreme Court defines “outstanding cases” and “case backlog”
differently. Outstanding cases are those cases that have yet to be
decided at the time when the Annual Report is being prepared, while
the case backlog consists of cases that have not been disposed of
at the expiry of the set period. Based on Supreme Court Directive No.
138/2009, the said period is one year from the date on which the case
in question was listed, or thirty days in the case of particular cases as
provided for by the provisions of the laws and regulations in effect.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
29
Thus, not all cases that have yet to be disposed of are treated as being
part of the backlog. Conversely, the backlog does not just consist of
cases that have yet to be decided, but rather also includes cases that
have been decided but which have yet to be sent back to the originating
court within the prescribed timeframe.
While the terms “outstanding cases” and “case backlog” are used
in different contexts, both of them serve as indicators of the court’s
performance is disposing of cases. The smaller the percentage of
outstanding cases and backlogged cases, the better the performance
of the court. We will now discuss the situation as regards outstanding
cases and the case backlog in 2011.
1) Outstanding Cases
The number of outstanding cases as of the end of December 2011
stood at 7,695. This represents 35.95% of cases when compared
with a total number of 21,414 cases. This figure marked a decline
compared with the previous year, when the percentage was 37.75%.
The following table shows the figures for the last five years:
Table 15
Data on Originating Courts for the Last Five Years
No
Year
Caseload
Decided
Outstanding
%
1
2007
21,541
10,714
10,827
50.26%
2
2008
22,165
13,885
8,280
37.36%
3
2009
20,820
11,985
8,835
42.44%
4
2010
22,315
13,891
8,424
37.75%
5
2011
21,414
13,719
7,695
35.93%
From the above table, it will be seen that the number of oc2 has
declined despite the number of cases received increasing. This
means that the productivity of the Supreme Court in deciding cases
is improving.
The Supreme Court’s progress in reducing the number of
outstanding cases over the last five years is as shown in the
following chart:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
30
Figure 7
Supreme Court’s progress in reducing number of outstanding cases over
the last 5 years.
2) Case Backlog
Cases Undecided after more than one year
The number of undecided cases as per the end of December 2011
stood at 7,695. Of these cases, the number of cases of more than
one year old (categorized as part of the backlog) stood at 1,813.
Meanwhile, 5,882 cases were less than one year old and had been
listed in 2011.
Decided Cases Not Yet Verified and archived after More Than
One Year
At the end of December 2011, the number of decided cases that
had yet to be verified and archived stood at 5,639. Of this figure,
a total of 2,863 cases were categorized as part of the backlog
(more than one year old), with those aged between 1 and 2 years
numbering 1,923, and those aged more than 2 years numbering
940. Consequently, the total number of backlog cases as per the
end of December 2011 stood at 4,676.
d. Active Cases
By active cases is meant cases that have yet to be disposed of so that
they are still before then Supreme Court, and accordingly are part of the
Supreme Court’s caseload. Active cases consist of three possibilities:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
31
first, they have yet to be decided; second, they have been decided but
have yet to be verified and archived, and third, they have been verified
and archived but have yet to be returned to the originating court during
the reporting period.
Based on data per end of December 2011, the number of active cases
stood at 16,547, consisting of 7,695 cases that had yet to be decided
and 8,852 cases that had yet to be verified and archived. The number
of active cases declined by 11.89% compared with the previous year,
when the figure was 18,780.
3. Performance in the Handling of Cases of Particular Public Importance
IN 2011, the Supreme Court received a total of 2,980 special criminal cases.
This figure marked a decline of 9.45% compared with the previous year,
when the figure was 3,291 cases. Meanwhile, the number of outstanding
special criminal cases in 2010 number 1,734 so that the total number of
special criminal cases handled by the Supreme Court in 2010 amounted to
5,025.
Table 16
Comparison between Number of Special Criminal Cases Received by the Supreme
Court in 2011 and 2010
2010
No
CLASSI­FICATION
2011
CASSATION /
FINAL
REVIEW
1035
CASSATION
FINAL
REVIEW
TOTAL
%
INCREASE/
DECREASE
1
Corruption
963
164
1127
8.89%
2
Drugs
512
701
14
715
39.65%
3
Child Protection
617
451
48
499
-19.12%
4
Forestry
191
111
12
123
-35.60%
5
Domestic Violence
95
87
2
89
-6.32%
6
Oil and gas
110
52
2
54
-50.91%
7
Fisheries
142
51
3
54
-61.97%
8
Customs & Excise
58
33
0
33
-43.10%
9
IP
35
24
3
27
-22.86%
10
Banking
29
23
6
29
0.00%
11
Human trafficking
34
20
2
22
-35.29%
1900.00%
12
Money laundering
0
19
0
19
13
Labor
18
16
0
16
-11.11%
14
Health
45
15
0
15
-66.67%
15
Housing
17
9
0
9
-47.06%
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
32
16
Environment
17
Terrorism
18
0
9
4
13
24
8
0
8
-66.67%
Others
110
66
21
87
-20.91%
TOTAL
3,072
2,658
281
2.939
-4.33%
Petitions for
Clemency
Total
219
3.291
1300.00%
41
2.980
-9,45%
Of the 4,879 cases handled, the Supreme Court decided 3,319 cases, or
68.03%. Thus, the percentage of outstanding cases at the end of 2011 stood
at 31.97%.
As regards special criminal cases that were registered in 2011, of the 2,980
incoming cases, the Supreme Court decided a total of 1,868, or 57.40%,
meaning that more than half of the special criminal cases were decided in
the same year. The following table describes the disposal of special criminal
cases registered in 2010 by type of application:
Table 17
Description of Disposal of Special Criminal Cases Registered in 2011 by Type of
Application
No.
Type
1
Cassation
2
Final review
3
Clemency
Total
Incoming
Decided
Outstanding
% Decided
2658
1705
953
64.15%
281
128
153
45.55%
41
35
6
85.37%
2980
1868
1112
62.68%
As will be seen from the above table, the number of special criminal cases
decided at the cassation level stood at 1,705, or 64.15% of the cases
received in 2011. The decisions on appeal in cassation in these cases are
as shown in the following table:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
33
Table 18
Decisions on Appeal in Cassation in Special Criminal Cases in 2011
No
Decision
Number
%
1
Decision of District Court/ Appellate Court to convict;
Supreme Court rejects appeal (Defendant still
punished
1,172
68.74%
2
Decision of District Court / Appellate Court to convict;
Supreme Court grants appeal (defendant still
punished)
314
18.42%
3
Decision of District Court /Appellate Court to acquit;
Supreme Court grants appeal (defendant still
punished)
84
4.93%
4
Decision of District Court / Appellate Court to convict;
Supreme Court grants appeal (defendant acquitted)
0
0.00%
5
Decision of District Court / Appellate Court to acquit;
Supreme Court rejects appeal (defendant acquitted)
135
7.92%
1,705
Based on the above table, it will be seen that during 2011 the Supreme
Court entered convictions in appeals in cassation/final reviews in a total of
1,570 cases (92.08%), while acquittals were entered in 135 cases, or 7.92%.
However, the said acquittals were actually acquittals in the District Court
from which the appeals originated and which appeals were rejected by the
Supreme Court so that the defendants continued to be acquitted. Meanwhile,
the Supreme Court entered no acquittals increasing the overturning of the
original verdict of the Supreme Court/Appellate Court during 2011.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
34
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
35
3 - 5 Years
6 - 10 Years
> 10 Years
Life
Death
Acquittal
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Total
< 1 year
1 - 2 Years
1
Sentence
No.
527
88
0
0
1
15
103
311
9
Corruption
100%
17%
0%
0%
0%
3%
20%
59%
2%
%
560
43
2
10
57
67
170
186
25
Drugs
42
6
0
0
0
0
6
18
12
Forestry
295
31
0
0
3
58
86
61
56
Child
Protection
32
4
0
0
0
0
0
18
10
Fisheries
21
11
0
0
0
0
0
4
6
Environment
Type of Case
23
4
0
0
0
0
0
11
8
IP
45
8
0
0
2
1
1
5
28
Domestic
Violence
Types/Length of Sentences in Special Criminal Cases Decided on Cassation in 2011
Table 19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Terrorism
7
0
0
0
0
5
1
1
0
Money
Laundering
152
24
0
0
2
9
22
34
61
Others
1705
219
2
10
65
155
389
649
216
total
100%
12.84%
0.12%
0.59%
3.81%
9.09%
22.82%
38.06%
12.67%
(%)
Description
Based on the above data, it will be seen that 83.30% of corruption cases
were found to have been proven by the Supreme Court on cassation and
sentences imposed on the defendants, while the defendants were acquitted
in 16.70 percent of cases. These acquittals were based on appeals against
acquittals in the District Court, where the appeals were rejected so that the
defendants remained free.
In 2011, the Supreme Court imposed death sentences on 2 persons involved
in drug cases, while life sentences were imposed on 10 defendants involved
in drugs cases. This figure marked an increase of 150% compared with the
previous year, when the figure was 4 cases.
Besides imprisonment, defendants in special criminal cases were also
ordered to pay fines and restitution, which in total amounted to Rp
992,646,942,760.00. This figure consisted of fines amounting to Rp
564,923,925,160.00
and restitution orders of Rp 427,723,017,600.00,
meaning that the Supreme Court contributed Rp 992,646,942,760.00 to the
state.
Table 20
Fines and Restitution Orders Imposed by the Supreme Court by Classification of
Special Criminal Case
No.
Case Classification
1
Corruption
2
Fines
Restitution Orders
Notes
527
53,858,431,760.00
427,723,017,600.00
Drugs
560
374,802,400,000.00
3
Forestry
42
3,770,000,000.00
4
Child Protection
295
12,511,500,000.00
5
Fisheries
32
12,755,000,000.00
6
Environment
21
88,050,000.00
7
IP
23
407,488,400.00
8
Domestic Violence
45
15,000,000.00
9
Terrorism
1
0.00
10
Money Laundering
7
16,400,000,000.00
11
Others
152
90,316,055,000.00
1705
564,923,925,160.00
427,723,017,600.00
Total
Number
Total Fines and Restitution Orders
992,646,942,760.00
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
36
Meanwhile, at the final review level, of the total number of 281 incoming
cases, the Supreme Court decided 128 (45.55%), with the details being as
follows: Allowed the petition for final review, 17 cases (13.28%); rejected
the petition for final review, 95 cases (74.22%), and refused to accept the
petition, 16 cases (12.50%).
As regards applications for clemency in 2011, of the 41 petitions that were
received, the Supreme Court considered 35 of them, allowing 8 petitions
(22.86%) and rejecting 27 (77.14%).
III.CASE MANAGEMENT SITUATION IN THE COURTS
THROUGHOUT INDONESIA IN 2011
The courts throughout Indonesia, at all levels and all jurisdictions, received a
total of 5,206,222 cases in 2011. The number of outstanding cases left over from
2010 amounted to 113,300, with the result that the caseload in 2011 amounted
to 5,319,522 cases. The number of cases received during 2011 increased by
70.60% compared with the previous year, when the figure was 3,051,717.1
Of the overall caseload, the courts decided 5,189,266 cases, or 97.55%, leaving
the number of outstanding cases as per the end of December 2011 at 130,256
(2.45%). The details of these cases by court level are as shown in the following
table:
Table 21
The details of these cases by court level
Court Level
Outstanding
2010
Incoming
2011
Total
Decided
Outstanding
First
Instance
110.667
5.191.482
5.302.149
5.174.966
127.183
Appeal
2.633
14.740
17.373
14.300
3.073
Total
113.300
5.206.222
5.319.522
5.189.266
130.256
1
The figure for outstanding cases in 2010 in this report is based on official data published by the Directorate General for each court jurisdiction. This data differs from the data presented in the Supreme Court’s
2010 Year Book. This difference results from the fact that at the time of the deadline for the 2010 annual
report, the data from the Directorates General was still not final. In the 2010 annual report it is stated that
the number of outstanding cases in the Courts of First Instance throughout Indonesia stood at 112,564,
consisting of 38,904 cases in the public courts, 62.975 cases in the Religious
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
37
1. Courts of First Instance
During 2011, the Court of First Instance throughout Indonesia received a
total of 5,191,482 cases. This figure marked a decline of increase of 70.94%
compared with the previous year, when the figure was 3,037,036 cases. The
number of outstanding cases from 2010 was 110,667, with the result that
the total caseload handled by the Courts of First Instance in 2011 amounted
to 5,302,482 cases. Of this figure, a total of 5,174,966 cases were decided,
or 97.60% of the cases. The number of cases still outstanding at the end of
December 2011 stood at 127,183 (2.40%).
Based on the above figures, the average clearance rate in the Courts of First
Instance throughout Indonesia stood at 97.60%. As a result, the courts were
able to keep the number of outstanding cases at below 10% - 2.40% to be
precise.
Table 22
Cases Received by the Courts of First Instance in the Four Court Jurisdictions
throughout Indonesia, 2010
Outstanding from
2010
Incoming
2011
Total
Decided
Outstanding
110.667
5.191.482
5.302.149
5.174.966
127.183
The details as regards cases in all the Courts of First Instance in 2011 based
on the court jurisdiction are as follows:
Table 23
Details of cases in all the Courts of First Instance by court jurisdiction, 2011
Court
Jurisdiction
Outstanding
2010
Incoming
Public
37.307
Religious
Total
Decided
4.816.804
4.854.111
4.808.881
45.230
62.959
363.249
426.208
353.933
72.275
Military
497
2.932
3.429
3.000
429
Administrative
438
1.432
1.870
1.428
442
9.466
7.065
16.531
7.724
8.807
110.667
5.191.482
5.302.149
5.174.966
127.183
Tax
Total
Outstanding
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
38
In the case of the public courts, the biggest number of cases consisted
of criminal cases. During 2011, a total of 4,761,797 criminal cases were
received by the District Courts, while the number of outstanding cases left
over from 2010 stood at 26,336. Thus, the total number of criminal cases
handled by the District Courts in 2011 amounted to 4,788,133. Of this figure,
the majority were summary cases (misdemeanors and traffic offenses,
which numbered 4,667,921 cases, or 98.03% of all criminal cases. The rest
consisted of ordinary offenses (119,375 or 1.96%) and minor offenses (837
or 0.02%).
2. Appellate Courts
During 2011, the Appellate Courts throughout Indonesia received a total of
14,740 cases. This figure marked a decline of 0.77% compared with the
previous year, when the figure was 14,681 cases. Meanwhile, the number
of cases outstanding from 2010 numbered 2,643, meaning that the total
caseload handled by the Appellate Courts in 2011 amounted to 17,373
cases. Of this figure, 14,300 cases were decided, leaving a backlog of 3,073
cases at the end of December 2011.
Table 24
Cases at the Appellate Level in the Four Court Jurisdictions throughout Indonesia,
2011
Outstanding 2010
Incoming 2011
Total
Decided
Outstanding
2.633
14.747
17.373
14.300
3.073
Based on the above data, the clearance rate in the Appellate Courts
throughout Indonesia stood at 82.31%, while the number of outstanding
cases stood at 16.79%.
The situation in all of the Appellate Court jurisdictions in 2011 is as shown in
the following table:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
39
Table 25
Case Situation in All Appellate Court Jurisdictions Throughout Indonesia, 2011
Court
Jurisdiction
Public
Religious
Military
Administrative
Total
Outstanding
Incoming
2.217
11.360
192
2.199
Total
Decided
Outstanding
13.577
10.911
2.666
2.391
2.189
202
36
361
397
368
29
188
820
1008
832
176
2.633
14.740
17.373
14.300
3.073
The Anticorruption Courts
During the course of 2011, the 33 Anticorruption Courts received a total of
872 corruption cases. With 392 cases outstanding from 2010, this meant
that the Anticorruption Courts had a total caseload of 1,264 cases in 2011.
Of all the cases dealt with during 2011, the Anticorruption Courts decided
466, with the result that there were 789 cases outstanding at the end of
December 2011 (63.13%).
Anticorruption Appellate Courts
During 2011, the Anticorruption Appellate Courts received appeals from
563 cases. Of this figure, the Anticorruption Appellate Courts managed to
decided 433 cases, leaving 130 cases outstanding at the end of 2011, giving
a case clearance rate at the appellate level of 79.91%.
Based on a comparison between the number of corruption cases decided
at first instance (466 cases) and the number of appeals (563), it will be seen
that almost all decisions were appealed. In addition, the number of cases
received by the Anticorruption Appellate Courts was higher than the number
of cases decided at first instance due to the fact that not all cases handled
by the Anticorruption Appellate Courts came from the anticorruption courts
at first instance, but rather were assigned to the Anticorruption Appellate
Courts by other courts.
IV. FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO THE STATE TREASURY
The case funds managed by the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts
are received from the levying of court costs and registry charges (non-tax state
revenues). The funds that are subsequently paid into the state treasury represent
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
40
a contribution by the judicial power to national revenues. In addition to Registry
charges, funds paid into the state treasury by the courts originate from fines and
restitution payments in particular types of cases.
During the course of 2011, the total non-tax state revenues received by the
Supreme Court and its subordinate courts, and fines/restitution payments paid
by convicted defendants were as follows:
Table 26
Financial Contribution by the Courts to the State Treasury
No
a.
Description
Ampount (Rp)
Non-Tax State Revenues
Supreme Court
708.796.000
Appellate Courts
457.192.000
Courts of First Instance
16.945.897.000
Sub total
b.
18.111.885.000
Fines and Restitution Payments
Supreme Court
Public Courts
Military Courts
992.646.942.760
4.746.655.971.394
14.587.250.500
Sub total
5.753.890.164.654
Total a+b
5.772.002.049.654
V. REFORM OF TECHNICAL AND CASE MANAGEMENT
FUNCTIONS
In the 2010-2035 Judicial Reform Blueprint, it is stated that all reform measures
on the technical side must be aimed at ensuring the implementation of the
judicial power in an independent, effective and just manner. The reform of
technical functions may also be interpreted as an effort to revitalize the function
of the Supreme Court as the highest court in the context of ensure legal unity, and
revitalizing the functions of the courts in the context of improving public access to
justice. A number of reform efforts in the technical and case management fields
were undertaken during the course of 2011, as described below:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
41
1. Application of chamber system in the Supreme Court
The application of the chamber system is one of the technical reform agendas
mandated by the 2010-2035 Judicial Reform Blueprint. In discharging this
mandate, the Supreme Court issued Directive Number 142/KMA/SK/IX/2011
dated 19 September 2011 in tandem with the holding of the Supreme Court’s
2011 National Working Meeting. Under this Directive, the Supreme Court
resolved to introduce a chamber system from 19 September 2011. However,
in doing so, a transition period will be applied up until April 2014. During this
transition period, the application of the chamber system will have regard to
the current conditions in and structure of the Supreme Court.
The objective of introducing the chamber system is as stated in Appendix I
to the aforesaid Supreme Court Directive, namely, to safeguard consistency
in judicial decisions, improve the professionalism of Supreme Court justices,
and to accelerate the case disposal process in the Supreme Court.
As part of the application of the chamber system, the Supreme Court will
introduce five different divisions, namely, the Civil Division, Criminal Division,
Administrative Division, Religious Division, and Ministry Division. The Civil
Division will also consist of a number of sub-divisions, namely, the Civil
Sub-Division and Special Civil Sub-Division, while the Criminal Division
will consist of the Criminal Sub-Division, Special Sub-Division, and NonCorruption Special Sub-Division.
The chamber system in the Supreme Court will only be applied to appeals in
cassation and final reviews. Meanwhile, the other jurisdictions of the Supreme
Court, namely, hearing petitions for clemency, giving legal opinions, hearing
petitions for judicial review and resolving disputes over jurisdiction between
courts shall be heard and adjudicated outside the chamber system.
In order to ensure the effective application of the chamber system, the
Supreme Court has issued the following supporting directives:
-
Chief Justice’s Directive No. 143/KMA/SK/IX/2011 tanggal 19 September
2011 on the appointment of chamber heads as part of the application of
the chamber system;
-
Chief Justice’s Directive No. 144/KMA/SK/IX/2011 on the appointment of
justices as chamber members as part of the application of the chamber
system in the Republic of Indonesia Supreme Court.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
42
-
Chief Justice’s Directive Number 162/KMA/SK/X/2011 tanggal 24
October 2011 on the naming of the chambers of the Republic of
Indonesia Supreme Court.
-
Chief Justice’s Directive Number 163/KMA/SK/X/2011 dated 24
October 2011 on the amendment of Directive Number 144/KMA/SK/
IX/2011 on the appointment of justices as chamber members as part
of the application of the chamber system in the Republic of Indonesia
Supreme Court.
-
Chief Justice’s Directive Number 171/KMA/HK.01/XII/2011 dated 17
December 2011 on the procedures for the application of the chamber
system.
2. Addition of Communications Feature in the Supreme Court Directory
of Decisions for the Electronic Transmission of Documents from the
Courts of First Instance to the Supreme Court
The
Directory
of
Supreme
Court
Decisions
http://decidedan.
mahkamahagung.go.id) is a system that has been developed by the
Supreme Court for the publication of the Supreme Court’s decisions.
The system has been in existence since 2006 and has been undergoing
continuous development by the Supreme Court Registry to date. Among
the developments that were instituted in 2011 are the addition of a new
data communication feature. This feature was introduced in connection with
the issuing of Supreme Court Circular No. 14 of 2010, which requires the
courts to attach certain electronic documents to appeals in cassation and
final reviews. This feature has become the method of choice of the courts
in sending electronic documents, in addition to the two other available
methods, namely, flash discs/compact discs and electronic mail.
Through this feature, the Courts of First Instance can send data to the
Supreme Court in both directions in respect of appeals in cassation and final
reviews. For the Supreme Court, the use of the feature allows the real-time
transmission of information on cases that are to be appealed in cassation. In
addition, the Supreme Court can immediately download the attached files,
as required under Supreme Court Circular Number 14 of 2010.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
43
All of the work undertaken by the Supreme Court, including opening,
downloading, registering and uploading decisions, is directly communicated
through the system to the originating court. In addition, data communications
can also be sent by electronic mail from the originating court. Furthermore,
in the case of appeals in cassation and final reviews, this feature can be
used by the Courts of First Instance and Appellate Courts when submitting
appeals.
3. Upgrading the Directory of Judgments into the National Judgment
Repository
In 2011, the Supreme Court Registry upgraded the Directory of Judgments
by providing access to all court jurisdictions through Indonesia at http://
decidedan.mahkamahagung.go.id.
Following this latest development, the decisions published on the Supreme
Court’s Directory of Judgments do not only consist of Supreme Court dn2,
but also judgments from the courts at all levels and all jurisdictions. Whereas
previously the courts published their decisions on their own websites, not
their decisions are published on the Supreme Court’s Directory of Judgments
so as to facilitate the public in accessing information. This process of
centralization has resulted in the Directory of Judgments becoming a
National Judgment Repository.
As per 31 December 2011, the number of judgments published in the
Directory of Judgments amounted to 120,410, consisting of 90,762
judgments of the Court of First Instance and the Appellate Courts (75.38%),
and 33,648 judgments of the Supreme Court (24.62%).
The number of judgments uploaded to the Directory of Judgments has been
recognized by Sebastian Pompe, the program manager of the National Legal
Reform Program (NLRP), in an article that was published in The Jakarta Post
on 29 March 2011. In the said article, Pompe stated that the number of
judgments published in the Directory of Judgments (at that time 22,437) was
more than that published in the United States, Netherlands, and Australia
over the last ten years, and more than published in the United States over the
last one hundred years. (http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/03/29/
legal-uncertainty-caused-advocates.html). Meanwhile, online news portal
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
44
detik news (www.detiknews.com) carried an article on Thursday, 12 January
2011 at 10:57 Western Indonesian Time, praising the Supreme Court for
earning a “World record for having uploaded 120 thousand judgments in
2011.”
The following graph shows the progress achieved in uploading decisions to
the Directory of Judgments between 2007 and 2011:
Figure 8
Ihe progress achieved in uploading decisions to the Directory
of Judgments between 2007 and 2011
Overall, the number of judgments uploaded to the Directory of Judgments
up to 31 December 2011 amounted to 144,995. Of these, 122,708, or
84.91%, were uploaded this year. The number of decisions uploaded in
2011 increased by 2,108.75% from 2010, when only 5,819 judgments were
uploaded. This increase was due to the higher level of participation by the
Courts of First Instance and Appellate Courts.
As regards Supreme Court judgments, the number uploaded during 2011
stood at 12,189. This figure marked an increase of 109.47% compared with
the previous year, when the figure was 5,819 decisions.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
45
CHAPTER
3
ACCESS TO JUSTICE
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 2
46
Chapter III
Access to Justice
I. JUDICIAL REFORM AGENDA
The Supreme Court’s target for the next five years is that the public will benefit
from greater access to justice. A number of support programs are consistently
being improved, including access to information, reduced fees for the poor and
marginalized, legal assistance and other programs.
II. LEGAL SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE FOR THE POOR AND
MARGINALIZED.
1. Legal Services and Assistance
In order to improve the legal assistance mechanism in the courts, the
Supreme Court issued Supreme Court Circular No. 10 of 2010 on guidelines
for the granting of legal assistance.
a. Legal Aid Posts
Under Supreme Court Circular Number 10 of 2010, legal aid posts in the
public courts are to be staffed by advocates who will be responsible for
providing legal assistance to those who need it.
The Legal Aid Posts will be used to fill in applications for legal assistance,
the provision of assistance with legal documents, legal advice and
consultations, further referrals on how to get dispensations from paying
fees, and the provision of services by advocates. The Legal Aid Posts
are intended to benefit people who no little about the law and who are
unable to pay for a lawyer.
In the public courts, the Director General of Public Courts has issued
Circular Number 412/DJU/OT.01.2/IV/2011 of 25 April 2011 on the
implementation of the Legal Aid Post system in sitting venues. This
circular instructs every District Court to provide an appropriate room to
serve as a Legal Aid Post.
The Director General of Public Courts has already conducted an
inventory of court facilities in 2011 as part of the Program to Improve
Legal Aid Services. This was intended to identify the extent to which
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
47
legal aid funds are being properly used, and at the same time to provide
information on Supreme Court Circular No. 10 of 2010 on guidelines for
the provision of legal aid, and Implementation Guidelines No. 1/DJU/
OT.3/VIII/2011. These activities are now being implemented in 10 High
Court jurisdictions.
The budget allocated by the Directorate General of Public Courts for the
provision of legal assistance in 344 courts around the country in 2011
amounted to Rp 34,519,500,000. However, only Rp 1,212,350,000 of
this was spent, with a total of 1,455 cases being involved.
The implementation of legal assistance in the Religious Courts was
clarified with the issuance of implementation guidelines in the form of a
directive of the Deputy Chief Justice for Religious Courts, 04/Tuada-Ag/
II/2011 dated 21 February 2011, and the Supreme Court Secretary’s
Directive number 020/Sek/SK/II/2011.
The Legal Aid Posts in the Religious Courts provide information,
consultations, advice and help with the preparation of claims/petitions.
In the particular case of jinayah cases in the Shariah Courts, assistance
may also be provided by an advocate free of charge, in the same way
as happens in the District Courts.
Those providing legal assistance in the Legal Aid Posts come from
outside the courts (advocates, law graduates and shariah graduates)
who work for legal aid organizations under the auspices of advocates’
associations, institutes of higher education, and NGOs that have signed
MoUs with the local religious court.
IN 2011, the Religious Courts had a target of 11,553 users of Legal Aid
Post services based on a budget of Rp 4,152,000,000. However, as per
December 2011, a total of 34,647 users had been served by the Legal
Aid Posts, meaning an increase of more than 300% of the original target.
b. Pro Deo Services and Itinerant sessions
Itinerant sessions are sessions that are held on a regular or periodic
basis by the court in a place within the court’s jurisdiction but outside of
the court’s seat.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
48
Itinerant sessions are intended to provide access to justice to people
living in remote areas where people have difficulty in paying for
transportation expenses.
The introduction of itinerant sessions in 2011 received a positive
response from the public. Of the 273 target locations originally identified
by the Director General of Religious Courts, itinerant sessions were
eventually held in 338 locations, while of the targeted 11,553 cases,
the Religious Courts managed to hear 18,549 cases during itinerant
sessions (an increase over the target of 160%).
The justices and officials of the Religious Courts sometimes even have
to make treacherous sea crossings in primitive boats to bring circuit
hearings to isolated areas. They have to make these journeys as there
is frequently no other way of accessing locations where circuit hearings
are to be held. However, this is understandable given the large number
of islands in Indonesia.
The introduction of itinerant sessions has been of significant assistance
in resolving the “birth certificate” problem. IN 2011, the Religious
Courts received a total of 25,180 marriage validation petitions. With the
validation of previously unregistered marriages, people are able to get
birth certificates for their children.
In 2011, the Religious Courts targeted 11,553 pro deo cases based on
a budget of Rp 3,465,900,000. Of this figure, only Rp 1,620,440,301, or
approximately 46.8%, was actually spent. The Religious Courts received
a total of 10,507 pro deo cases, or around 91% of the target.
Marriage Validation Session in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia
The Supreme Court has achieved a major new breakthrough in
providing public access to justice so that access to justice is not only
enjoyed by citizens residing in Indonesia, but also by citizens living in
other countries.
Based on Supreme Court Directive Number 084/KMA/SK/V/2011 on
permission for marriage validation sessions at Republic of Indonesia
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
49
representative offices, the Central Jakarta Religious Court held a
marriage validation in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia.
This policy of the Supreme Court is based on a realization of the need
to be sensitive and responsive to the legal problems faced by people.
Unofficial or unregistered marriages are very common among both
Indonesians in general and Indonesian migrant workers in particular,
particularly those experiencing immigration problems. From the legal
perspective, those who participate in unregistered marriages have
no right to a marriage certificate, even though this is of the utmost
importance for immigration documents. Consequently, such marriage
validation sessions of the Religious Courts provide a solution for
Indonesian migrants, and allows them to obtain marriage certificates
after their marriages have been validated.
In collaboration with the Indonesian consulate general in Kota Kinabalu,
the Central Jakarta Religious Court heard 367 petitions for the validation
of unregistered marriages, of which 335 petitions were granted.
Meanwhile, of the remaining cases, 27 could not be officialized as the
petitioners failed to show up, 4 applications were rejected as the cases
involved divorce proceedings that were currently underway in Indonesia,
while the application was rejected as the husband was married twice.
c. Circuit Sessions
For the purpose of helping those who live far away from the District
Court’s seat, particularly the poor and marginalized, a number of District
Courts have been holding circuit sessions based on Director General of
Public Courts Directive Number 1/DJU/OT.01.3/I/2012 dated 26 January
2012.
To date, circuit sessions are held in 59 locations, 39 of which belong to
the Supreme Court, with 19 of these being in good condition and 15 in
poor condition due to disasters, with the result that funding is needed for
repairs. Meanwhile, 25 other circuit locations are owned by the Ministry
of Law and Human Rights.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
50
2. Constraints and Solutions
a. Directorate General of Public Courts
The constraint most frequently faced in connection with the legal
assistance program for the poor is the unwillingness of people to seek
help. Frequently defendants do not want to be assisted by advocates at
the cost of the state as they think they will be stigmatized as being poor
or will experience problems during the course of the trial.
As regards circuit sessions, the constraints faced by the Directorate
General of Public Courts are as follows: (1) buildings only partially
transferred to the Supreme Court; (2) many buildings owned by the
Supreme Court are in poor condition and unsuitable for use.
In order to overcome these constraints, the Directorate General of Public
Courts has instituted the following measures, among others:
-
Persuading people that they have the right to legal assistance,
particularly in the case of the poor;
-
More intensive dissemination of information on Supreme Court
Circular Number 10 of 2010, and its implementing guidelines;
-
The issuance of Director General of Public Courts Directive Number
1/DJU/OT.01.3/VIII/2011 on guidelines for the implementation of
Supreme Court Circular No. 10 of 2010;
-
Regularly monitoring the implementation of legal aid, legal aid
posts, and circuit sessions so as to ensure that all of these are
improved;
-
Improved/renovating circuit court locations that are damaged by
providing the necessary funds for repairs.
b. Directorate General of Religious Courts
As legal aid posts are a relatively new innovation in the Religious Courts,
it should come as no surprise that a number of problems have emerged
on the ground. These include the fact the some legal aid post personnel
do not properly understand the procedural processes in the Religious
Courts. As a result, petitions and claims, responses and rejoinders are
frequently not in accordance with the rules prevailing in the Religious
Courts. As a result, a case may be rejected due to lack of clarity. If this
happens, obviously the party concerned will be greatly prejudiced.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
51
Another problem is that legal aid post personnel are frequently not
familiar with technical Islamic legal terminology, which it should be noted
represents the substantive law in the Religious Courts. This is a result of
the fact that many of those working in the legal aid posts are trained in
public law rather than shariah law. In addition, the infrastructure available
to the legal aid posts in the Religious Courts is frequently inadequate,
such as insufficient space, lack of office stationery, inadequate computer
facilities, etc. IN the case of the pro deo program, the uptake of funds
has been relatively poor. This is because people have difficulties in
obtaining Certificates of Inadequate Means, which are a precondition
for submitting an application for a pro deo case. Sometimes people
have to expend more on a Certificate of Inadequate Means than they
would actually have to pay in court fees.
In addition, people also face psychological problems, and feel
embarrassed about having to seek pro deo services.
In order to overcome the aforementioned constraints, the following
measures, among others, have been adopted:
-
Integrated program of socialization among court officials and the
public;
-
2012 budget proposal that is capable of supporting the
implementation of the legal aid post program.
3. Legal Aid Next Year
With the enactment of Law Number 16 of 2011 on legal assistance, the
operation of the legal aid posts will come under the auspices of the Ministry
of Law and Human Rights, and will not longer be the responsibility of the
Supreme Court. This law enters into effect in 2013. However, in 2012 the
operation of the legal aid posts will continue to be the responsibility of the
Supreme Court.
III.ACCESS TO JUDICIAL INFORMATION
1. Judicial Information Services
Prior to the enactment of Law Number 14 of 2008 on freedom of information,
which entered into effect on 30 April 2010, the Supreme Court had already
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
52
issued Directive Number 144/KMA/SK/VII/2007 on access to public
information in the judicial system, which was subsequently amended by
Directive Number 1-144/KMA/SK/I/2011.
The establishment of information desks in the courts has played an important
role in the realization of the ten court values,2 one of which is information
transparency in the judicial system.
2. Publication of Supreme Court Information
a. Publication of Information on Cases and Decisions
The publication of decisions, which can be accessed at http://
decidedan.mahkamahagung.go.id, was commenced by the Supreme
Court in 2007. Meanwhile, as regards case information, this can be
accessed at http://kepaniteraan.mahkamahagung.go.id.
AS of the end of 2011, the Supreme Court had published 145,309
decisions, including 9,607 decisions of the Public Courts, 91,725
decisions of the Religious Courts, 3,158 decisions of the Military Courts,
and 1,399 decisions of the State Administrative Courts.
b. Performance of the Information Desks
The Supreme Court has integrated information technology into the
operation of the information desks so that information can be accessed
online at any time and in any place.
The establishment of an information desk in each court has had positive
impacts in a number of regards, including:
·
Reducing the opportunities for litigants to meet with justices and
registrars;
·
Allowing litigants and court users to seek and obtain transcripts of
decisions;
·
Reduced cost as the Supreme Court’s website can be accessed
from anywhere.
The public continues to give a warm response to this service. For
example, between its establishment on 29 June 2009 and 31 December
2009, the Supreme Court’s information desk received a total of 481
2
Among the court values agreed on by the International Consortium for Court Excellence are equality
before the law, fairness, impartiality, independence of decision making, competence, integrity,
transparency, accessibility, timeliness and certainty. http://www.courtexcellence.com/
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
53
queries. The number of visitors increased drastically in 2010 to 2,140,
representing an increase of 122.45%.
Meanwhile in 2011, the number of users of the information desk at the
Supreme Court amounted to 1,779, which figure marked a decline of
about 20% compared with the previous year. This decline was due to
the fact that it is no easier for members of the public to seek information
directly from the court’s websites, such as http://kepaniteraan.
mahkamahagung.go.id/perkara and http://sms.mahkamahagung.go.id
for information on cases, and http://decidedan.mahkamahagung.go.id
for court documents.
3. Information Services in the Courts
a. Performance of the Directorate General of Religious Courts
Information Service
In order to maximize the work of its information desk, the Director General
of Religious Courts issued Directive Number 017/Dj.A/SK/VII/2011 on
guidelines for the operation of information desks in the Religious Courts.
The Directorate General also conducts monitoring of the work of the
information desks based on Director General of Religious Courts
Circular Number 2510/Dj.A.1/HK.00/VIII/20011. A special team is tasked
by the Director General with ensuring that the information desks are
operating as they should.
Among the important findings of this monitoring work are the following:
1) Many of the Religious Courts are applying the information desk
system effectively and in accordance with Supreme Court Directive
Number 1-144/KMA/SK/I/2011 and Director General of Religious
Courts Circular Number 017/Dj.A/SK/VII/2011.
2) Many Religious Courts resort to various improvisations in order
to improve the quality of the services provided by the information
desks.
3) The sterile areas are being properly implemented. These are
designed to prevent improper contacts between litigants and court
officials.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
54
Information desks in the Religious Courts are equipped with computers
that use the SIADPA program, which allows all information on cases such
as the schedule of hearings, progress of the case, divorce certificates
and so forth to be easily accessed and presented to justice seekers.
These information desks also provide various brochures and leaflets
on the judicial process, court profiles, court jurisdiction, costs and so
forth. A touch-screen computer is also available to help information
seekers, as are SMS information services through which information on
court hearings, divorce certificates and so forth is automatically sent to
individuals’ cell phones.
In order to improve the skills of those attending to the information desks,
the Directorate General of Religious Courts has been collaborating
with the Family Court of Australia (FCoA) facilitated by the Australia
Indonesia Partnership for Justice (AIPJ), which to date has held three
workshops on the operation of information desks, with the first workshop
being held in 2011, and two held thus far in 2012.
The first workshop was held on 12-14 December 2011, and was
attended by 30 participants, representing 29 Religious Courts in
Indonesia. The participants were encouraged to disseminate the skills
and knowledge they had learned to information desk officers in their
respective jurisdictions.
b. Performance of the Directorate General of Public Courts
Information Service
Various types of information can be accessed by the public through the
information desks in the District Courts, including hearing schedules,
information on cases and decisions, information on personnel and
profiles of justices and staff, and budget information.
These information desks provide a variety of brochures on free legal
aid, court costs, court profiles, etc. Through easy-to-use touch-screen
computer facilities, justice seekers can obtain a wide variety of useful
information.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
55
c. Performance of the Directorate General of Military and
Administrative Courts’ Information Service
The public can access case information and submit complaints
about the content available from the military and administrative courts
information service, which covers a total of 55 line units. The service
may be accessed at www.ditjenmiltun.net and www.ditjenmiltun.info.
At the present time, 23 Military Courts and 32 State Administrative
Courts have websites and information desks. Only 2 line units, namely,
the Serang State Administrative Court and the Tanjung Pinang State
Administrative Court do not as yet have an information service as both
of these courts were only newly established in November 2011. As a
result, the infrastructure available to them is still limited.
IV. OTHER POLICIES RELATED TO ACCESS TO THE COURTS
1. Complaints against Decisions concerning Access to Information
Law Number 14 of 2008 on access to information, which also governs the
handling of complaints, gives rise to a variety of questions concerning such
fundamental issues as the capacity of complainants, whether a public body
can also submit a complaint, the question of the absolute competence of the
court; the timeframe for the submission of complaints, the procedural law
applicable, and the execution process.
In response to these questions, the Supreme Court issued Supreme
Court Regulation Number 02 of 2011 (on procedures for the resolution of
disputes regarding access to public information in the judicial sphere) on 29
November 2011.
This Regulation represents an effort to fill the prevailing legal vacuum that
has the potential to give rise to legal uncertainty and confusion.
2. Mediation in the Courts
As one form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), mediation offers a
cheap, speedy, simple and flexible mechanism for resolving disputes.
An agreement achieved as the outcome of mediation has the same
executorial effect as a judicial decision, and an deed of resolution setting out
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
56
the agreement between the parties and the ruling of the judge validating the
agreement is not subject to either ordinary or extraordinary legal measures
(article 1(2) of Supreme Court Regulation Number 1 of 2008).
The implementation of mediation in the Public Courts and Religious Courts
has to date not been the first choice of litigants. Nevertheless, positive
developments are being recorded from year to year.
In the particular case of the Religious Courts, mediation has had relatively
little success to date. This is due to the fact that the cases that come before
the Religious Courts are very difficult to mediate, such as in the case of
broken marriages that are characterized by discord and strife.
3. Public Service standards in the courts
In order to fulfill the mandate provide by Law Number 25 of 2009 on public
services, the Supreme Court is currently in the process of framing a regulation
on public service standards in the judicial sphere.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
57
CHAPTER
4
JUDICIAL SUPERVISION
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 3
58
Chapter IV
JUDICIAL SUPERVISION
I. THE REFORM AGENDA
The Supreme Court is currently diligently striving to implement various judicial
reform programs as part of the effort to improve public confidence in the courts.
For that reason, the Supreme Court, in collaboration with other institutions in the
legal sphere, has prepared a Anticorruption Action Plan, working together with
the Anti Legal Mafia Taskforce. One of the components of this action plan is the
preparation of audit and performance evaluation instruments that cover judicial
integrity, and strengthening the complaints mechanism at the appellate level.
Integrity audits are intended to identify the level of acuteness and the modus of
violations so as to help detect and prevent such violations and identify the roots
of the problem and how to respond to violators.
The conducting of a performance and integrity audit by the Supreme Court
Supervisory Board involves two stages. The first stage consists of a tryout of the
instruments that have been prepared. During the first stage, all of the Courts of
First Instance in Jakarta will be audited, while in the second stage the audit will
be extended to other areas using instruments that have been improved based
on the tryouts in Jakarta.
Findings of Integrity Audit
The evaluation of overall integrity involves an appraisal of the integrity of the courts
based on the areas covered by the prepared questionnaire, with appropriate
weightings being assigned.
During the first stage of the integrity audit in Jakarta, 3 courts were courts
obtain the best outcome based on the results of an internal and external survey.
However, as the first stage was still a tryout, a evaluation based on scoring and
percentages was not carried out.
During stage two of the integrity audit, 64 courts received the highest score and
were placed in level 1 based on an internal survey. The details are as shown in
the following table:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
59
Table 1
Stage Two Internal Integrity Evaluation
Court
Level I
Level II
Level III
District Court
26
10
6
Religious Court
29
6
3
State Administrative Court
6
1
3
Military Court
3
1
2
64
18
14
Total
Based on the results of the external survey, 63 courts were ranking as being on
Level I, 21 on Level II and 12 on Level III, as shown in the following table:
Table 2
Stage Two External Integrity Evaluation
Court
Level I
Level II
Level III
District Court
21
15
6
Religious Court
32
5
1
State Administrative Court
7
1
2
Military Court
3
0
3
63
21
12
Total
Development of Complaint Mechanism
Responding effectively to public complaints is one form of improved Supreme
Court services to the public. Besides improvements to the online complaints
mechanism in 2011, complaints can now also be forwarded through text
messages. This service was established by virtue of Supreme Court Directive
Number 216/KMA/SK/XII/2011, dated 27 December 2011 on guidelines for the
handling of complaints via text messages. The introduction of a text message
complaints service is intended to encourage officials in the Supreme Court
and subordinate courts to report abuses of power, violations of the laws and
regulations, and/or violations of the code of ethics and behavioral guidelines by
officials of the Supreme Court and subordinate courts.
Complaints can be sent by text message to the Supreme Court Supervisory
Board to 0852-824.90.900, typing namapelapor#nip#satker#ibukotapropin
si#terlapor#isipengaduan. The system will enter into effect in 2012.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
60
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF DUTIES OF SUPREME COURT
SUPERVISORY BOARD
Internal supervision by the Supreme Court Supervisory Board in 2011:
1. Implementation of Internal Supervision
a. Responding to public complaints
The Supreme Court Supervisory Board received a total of 3,232
complaints in 2011, with the details being as shown below:
Of the total number of complaints received (3,232), 1,253 were found to
not merit processing, while 1,979 were found to merit processing. The
details are as shown below:
Investigated by the Supervisory Board
= 122
Responded to by letter
= 696
Delegated to Appellate Court
= 314
Delegated to Court of First Instance
= 109
Delegated internally
= 62
*Combined with others
= 488
Still being examined
= 188
(*where the complainant and the substance are the same).
2. Regular Supervision
In 2011, regular supervision was conducted in respect of 61 investigation
subjects. This figure marked a decline of compared with the previous year,
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
61
when the figure was 106 investigation subjects were probed. This decline
was due to a change in investigation procedures. Regular supervision
during 2011 encompassed the District Courts, Religious Courts, State
Administrative Courts and the Military Courts, as shown in the following
chart:
Figure 1
Regular Supervision
3. Monitoring
Monitoring refers to the conducting of follow-up in respect of the findings
of regular supervision. During 2011, monitoring was conducted on 34
supervision subjects (line units) while the figure for the previous year was
25 supervision subjects. The areas that were subject to monitoring are as
shown in the following chart:
Figure 2
Monitoring
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
62
4. Review of the Supreme Court Annual Accounts for 2011
A review of the Supreme Court’s accounts for 2011 was conducted to ensure
that the accounting policies employed and the presentation of the accounts
comply with the Government Accounting Standards. Based on the results
of the review of all 46 regional offices, a number of weaknesses were found
that have the potential to affect the reliability of the accounts. Accordingly,
for the purpose of implementing the mandate set out in Minister of Finance
Regulation Number 41/PMK.09/2010 on standards for the review of the
financial statements of state ministries / institutions, the Supreme Court
Supervisory Board felt it necessary to further encourage compliance with
the prescribed accounting system so as to eventually achieve an unqualified
opinion on the Supreme Court’s accounts. In order to do so, the Supreme
Court sought the assistance of the Development Finance Comptroller
(BPKP) based on the MoU Number 015/Sek/01/I/2011 MOU-020/K/D2/2011
dated 13 January 2011 between the Supreme Court and the BPKP. The said
MoU was signed for the purpose of helping strengthen good governance in
the Supreme Court.
5. Imposition of disciplinary sanctions
During 2011, disciplinary sanctions and measures were imposed against
130 court personnel, consisting of 127 personnel from the courts and 3
personnel from the Military Courts, as shown in the following table:
Table 3
Disciplinary Sanctions on Court Personnel
No
1
Position
Judge
Type of Punishment
Severe
Medium
Light
11
12
26
Total
49
2
Ad Hoc Judge
1
0
0
1
2
Registrar/Secretary
2
1
2
5
3
Deputy Registrar
2
0
2
4
4
Deputy Secretary
0
0
1
1
5
Junior Registrar
4
0
7
11
6
Structural Official
2
0
4
6
7
Clerk
3
2
10
15
8
Bailiff/Deputy Bailiff
4
1
4
9
9
Staff
13
6
6
25
10
Candidate Judge
1
0
0
1
11
Candidate Civil servant
0
0
0
0
43
22
62
127
Total
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
63
Table 4
Disciplinary Sanctions on Military Court Personnel
No
Position
Type of Punishment
Reprimand
Light Detention
Hard Detention
2
1
-
Judge
Total
3
Total
3
III.STRATEGIC SUPERVISORY MEASURES
For the purpose of strengthening bureaucratic reform, the Supreme Court
Supervisory Board has instituted the following measures:
1. Collaboration with the Judicial Commission
a. Judicial Disciplinary Council (MKH)
Based on the MoU Number 047/KMA/SKB/IV/2009–02/SKB/P.KY/
IV/2009 dated 8 April 2009 (on the judicial code of ethics and conduct)
between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission , the Supreme
Court and the Judicial Commission have conducted a number of joint
investigations leading to the establishment of Judicial Disciplinary
Councils.
Since the signing of the abovementioned MoU between the Supreme
Court and the Judicial Commission, the Judicial Commission has
submitted the following recommendations to the Supreme Court:
Table 5
Sessions of the Judicial Disciplinary Council and Disciplinary Sanctions Imposed in
2011
No
1
Name
Ed, SH
District Court
Judge. Mtr
(previously District
Court Judge. Dm)
Type of Violation
Regulation Violated
Disciplinary
Sanction
Violation of
Judicial Code
of Ethics and
Condu t
Article C. paragraph
2 point 2.1.1 , point
2.2.1, paragraph 5
point 5.2.3.2 and
paragraph 7 point
7.1 SKB KMA and KY
No. 047/KMA/SKB/IV/
2009 –02/SKB/P.KY/
IV/2009 on the Judicial
Code of Ethics and
Conduct
Transfer to a nonjudicial position in
PT. Jbi for 2 years
and withdrawal
of allowances
during this period
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
64
Dnr, SHI
Judge of MSy Tp T
2
Dw Dj, SH., MH
Judge of PN. Ygt
(previously judge of
PN. Kp)
3
Jr Prb, SH
Judge of PN. B Bg
4
Violation of Code
of Ethics and
Conduct
Article C paragraph
1.2. (2), paragraph
3.1. (1), paragraph
5.1.1 and paragraph
7.1 SKB KMA and KY
No. 047/KMA/SKB/
IV/2009 – 02/SKB/P.
KY/IV/2009 on Judicial
Code of Ethics and
Conduct
Involuntary
honorable
removal as judge
Violation of Code
of Ethics and
Conduct
Article C paragraph
1.1. (1) and paragraph
1.2. (2), paragraph
2.1. (1), paragraph
2.2. (1), paragraph
5.2.3 (2), paragraph
6.1 and paragraph 7.1
SKB KMA and KY No.
047/KMA/SKB/IV/209
– 02/SKB/P.KY/IV/2009
on Judicial Code of
Ethics and Conduct
Dishonorable
removal as judge
Violation of Code
of Ethics and
Conduct
Article C paragraph
1.2. (2) and paragraph
3.1. (1) and paragraph
5.1.1 and paragraph
7.1. SKB KMA and KY
No. 047/KMA/SKB/IV/
2009 – 02/SKB/P.KY/
IV /2009 on Judicial
Code of Ethics and
Conduct
Written reprimand
and reduction
of 75% in
allowances
for period of 3
months
Since the establishment of the Judicial Disciplinary Council in 2009
and 2011, the outcomes of joint Judicial Disciplinary Council sessions
involving the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission are as shown
in the following table:
Table 6
Punishments imposed by Judicial Disciplinary Council, 2009-2011
No.
Type of Punishment
Year
2009
2010
2011
Total
1
Dishonorable Discharge
1
4
1
6
2
Involuntary Honorable Discharge
- -
1
1
3
Assigned to non-judicial duties, transfer
and demotion
2
-
-
2
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
65
4
Assigned to non-judicial duties, transfer
and deferment of promotion
-
1
-
1
5
Assigned to non-judicial duties, transfer
-
-
1
1
6
Written reprimand
-
1
1
TOTAL
3
5
4
12
b. Establishment of Combined and Assistance Teams
For the purpose of improving coordination in the discharge of the
supervisory function between the different judicial bodies, efforts are
needed to ensure both internal and external synergies. To that end,
the Supreme Court has established Combined Teams and Assistance
Teams based on the following Supreme Court Directives:
1) Chief Justice’s Directive Number 210/KMA/SK/XII/2011 on the
establishment of a Combined Team in the context of collaboration
between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission.
2) Chief Justice’s Directive Number 211/KMA/SK/XII/2011 on the
establishment of an Assistance Team for the Supreme Court
Combined Team in the context of collaboration between the
Judicial Commission and the Supreme Court. The Combined
Team is established for the purpose of improving coordination and
communications, while the Assistance Team is established to help
formulate the relevant technical regulations.
The two teams have played a role in improving the effectiveness
and efficiency of coordination and communication between the
Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission while at the same time
encouraging the completion of key agendas regarding the framing and
implementation of technical guidelines related to joint investigations,
guidelines for the application of the Code of Ethics and Conduct,
guidelines for the holding of sessions of the Judicial Disciplinary Council
(MKH), the judicial recruitment system and the recruitment system for
ad hoc justices in the Supreme Court, improving the capacity of justices
through education and training, and improving the working conditions
of justices.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
66
2. Supervision of the Tax Court
The Tax Court is a special court established within the framework of the State
Administrative Courts which is responsible for exercising the judicial power
in the context of tax disputes. Bearing in mind that the Tax Court forms part
of the State Administrative Court system, the responsible for supervision
of the Tax Court rests with the Supreme Court through the Supreme Court
Supervisory Board.
Having regard to a report by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK)’s
Director of Investigations and Development regarding irregularities in the
Tax Court, an action plan has been formulated that consists of the following
measures:
a. Supervision of the Conduct of Judges and Officials of the Tax
Court.
- through the provision of a system for receiving complaints in accordance
with Supreme Court Directive Number 1-144/KMA/SK/2011 on the
provision of information and establishment of a complaints system.
- through the provision of funding for the conducting of supervision over
the operation of the Tax Court through the 2012 budget.
b. Supervision over the performance of administrative duties in the
Tax Court
This includes regular inspections, performance audits and monitoring
follow-up action on the findings of the regular inspections.
3. Improving the Quality of Government Internal Supervisory Personnel
Risk management is one of the elements of the government internal control
system that requires particular attention, particularly as regards internal
supervisory personnel, as mandated by Government Regulation Number
60 of 2008 of the Government Internal Control System. In this respect,
the Supreme Court Supervisory Board considers it necessary to provide
technical guideline on risk management so that officials understand and are
capable of implementing risk management as part of the effort to improve
the effectiveness of Internal Control in the Supreme Court, and improving the
quality of overall supervision.
The provision of such management technical guidance on risk management
on the part of the Supervisory Board has given rise to a number of conceptual
steps, including:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
67
a. Draft Chief Justice’s Directive on the Internal Control System in the
Supreme Court;
b. Draft Junior Chief Justice for Supervision Directive on internal supervisory
standards in the Supreme Court Supervisory Board;
c. The 2013 internal supervision plan;
d. Follow-up plan to prepare for the implementation of risk management;
e. Supervision Pledge
f.
Initiation of coordination meetings to improve the quality of financial
reporting in the Supreme Court in 2011 with the objective of achieving
an unqualified opinion through the following measures:
-
providing assistance with the preparation of the Supreme Court
financial statements for 2011
-
Assistance with the review of the Supreme Court financial statements
for 2011.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
68
CHAPTER
5
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
AND MANAGEMENT
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 4
69
Chapter V
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT AND MANAGEMENT
The Supreme Court continuously strives to improve the quality of its human resources
so as to ensure the availability of honest, professional, dignified and responsible staff.
I. REFORM AGENDA
The effort to improve the quality of human resources is carried out through
integrated improvements to systems and management. This is one of the
priorities set out in the 2010-2035 Judicial Reform Blueprint.
1. Reform of the human resources development system
In 2011, the Supreme Court conducted individual assessments as part of the
process of selecting and assigning ecn1 1 structural officials. This process
was conducted in accordance with the rules of the National Civil Service
Board (BKN), which require the conducting of individual assessments.
As part of this process, the “Assessment Center” method was employed,
whereby the professional competencies of an individual as assessed
through a number of simulations/indicators based on the competencies
required for their job.
The composition of Echelon 1 structural positions in the Supreme Court at
the end of December 2011 was as follows:
Table 1
composition of Echelon 1 structural positions in the Supreme Court at the end of
December 2011
No.
Number
Notes
1
Supreme Court Secretary
Position
1
Filled
2
Supreme Court Registrar (functionally the
equivalent of Echelon I)
1
Filled
3
Director General of Public Courts
1
Filled
4
Director General of Religious Courts
1
Filled
5
Director General of Military and Administrative
Courts
1
Filled
6
Law and Justice Research and Development
Center
1
Filled
7
Supervisory Board
1
Filled
8
Administrative Affairs Board
1
Filled
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
70
2. Application of Human Resources System
The Supreme Court is continuously developing its human resources
database, which is gradually being computerized. The development of the
human resources database is carried out in an integrated fashion with other
Echelon 1 units within the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court database currently covers approximately 90% of staff.
a. Employee Information System (SIKEP)
At the present time, 34,229 (90%) of Supreme Court employees and
the four court jurisdictions are actively listed on the Supreme Court’s
Employee Information System (SIKEP). The use of the SIKEP application
is available to around 20% of line units in the regions.
b. National Civil Service Board’s Employee Services Application
System (SAPK)
The SAPK was launched on 19 July 2011 by the National Civil service
Board (BKN) and is required to be used by all agencies for the purpose
of proposing promotions and pensions for civil servants. The application
was rolled out nationally on 25 July 2011.
Almost 90% of Supreme Court employees are registered on the SAPK,
with the remaining 10% not yet registered due to the difference in the
pensionable age as between the Supreme Court and the BKN. The
head of the BKN has said that the Supreme Court is one of the 10 big
agencies whose data has been verified by the BKN. The Supreme Court
is also proactive in reconciling its data with the BKN.
c. Supreme Court Integrated Information System (SIMARI)
SIMARI is an integrated system that provides applications covering
the following: case management, employee management, asset
management, planning and financial management. At the present time,
SIMARI is almost 70% developed and is expected to be launched in
April 2012.
II. RECRUITMENT
In line with the Supreme Court’s performance in 2011, it is planned to recruit a
total of 1,850 staff. This recruitment drive is based on a workload analysis and
job map prepared by the Supreme Court, with 1,715 persons being required to
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
71
fill candidate civil servant and candidate judge posts, 100 person to fill ad hoc
judicial positions in the Anticorruption Courts and 35 persons to fill functional
positions.
The Supreme Court has proposed the recruitment process to the Minister for
the State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform. However, with the issuance of the
Joint Resolution of the Minister for the State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform,
Minister of Home Affairs and Minister of Finance Regulation Number 02/SPB/M.
PAN-RB/8/2011, Number 800-632 Th 2011 and Number 141/PMK.01/2011
dated 24 August 2011, the Supreme Court did not recruit any new candidate civil
servants or judges during 2011.
A total of 84 out of 100 ad hoc judges have been recruited, accounting for 84%
of the number needed.
As regards specific functional positions, such as archivists, human resources
analysts, librarians, and so forth, the Supreme Court has targeted the recruitment
of 35 individuals and has to date recruited 8, or 22.86% of the number needed. It
is impossible to achieve a rate of 100% because due to the need for certification
in order to be promoted to a functional position, technical budget difficulties, and
the lack of awareness of the need for functional staff.
1. Development in the Human Resources Sector
Development in the human resources sector covers human resources
administration, human resources training, and participation in Level 1 and
II Examinations, and the participation of functional officials in Credit Score
Implementation Management (a total of 1,086 staff were involved).
2. Training for Anticorruption Judges
The Supreme Court has provided training for ad hoc judges of the
Anticorruption Court. This was participated in by 122 Anticorruption Court
judges, consisting of 80 sitting at first instance and 40 sitting at the appellate
level.
3. Positions on the Supreme Court Bench
The Supreme Court’s chamber system entered into effect on 1 October
2011. During the transition phase up to April 2014, the chamber system
will be applied having regard to the current conditions and organizational
structure prevailing in the Supreme Court.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
72
The objective of introducing the chamber system is as stated in Supreme
Court Directive Number 142/KMA/SK/IX/2011, namely, to safeguard
consistency in judicial decisions, improve the professionalism of Supreme
Court justices, and to accelerate the case disposal process in the Supreme
Court.
As part of the application of the chamber system, the Supreme Court will
introduce five different divisions, namely, the Civil Division, Criminal Division,
Administrative Division, Religious Division, and Military Division.
The chamber system in the Supreme Court will only be applied to appeals in
cassation and final reviews. Meanwhile, the other jurisdictions of the Supreme
Court, namely, hearing petitions for clemency, giving legal opinions, hearing
petitions for judicial review and resolving disputes over jurisdiction between
courts shall be heard and adjudicated outside the chamber system, with the
sitting justices taken from a number of different chambers.
The composition of the Supreme Court in 2011 is as shown in the following table:
Table 2
Composition of the Supreme Court, 2011
Position
Number
Chief Justice
1
Deputy Chief Justice, Judicial
1
Deputy Chief Justice, Non-Judicial
1
Junior Chief Justices
9
Justices
42
Total
54
III.CAREER DEVELOPMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT
1. Promotion and Transfer of Technical Staff
The promotion and transfer of judges is based on their individual talents,
competencies, integrity, performance, qualifications and education / training.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
73
The promotion and transfer process is also intended to fill vacancies as
they arise in the courts and to ensure a career development system that is
focused, objective and fair as part of the effort to improve the performance
of judges.
Table 3
Data on the Promotion and Transfer of Judicial Manpower in the Four Court
Jurisdictions throughout Indonesia, 2011
Jurisdiction
Position
Courts of First
Instance
Appellate Courts
Public Courts
President
Deputy President
Judge
216
205
733
3
12
160
Religious Courts
President
Deputy President
Judge
93
99
729
109
Military Courts
President
Deputy President
Judge
4
5
29
1
-
State Administrative
Courts
President
Deputy President
Judge
13
14
47
18
The following table shows the promotion and transfer of judges in the special
courts throughout Indonesia during the course of 2011:
Table 4
Data on the promotion and transfer of judges in the special courts throughout
Indonesia, 2011
Special Court Judges
Juvenile Appellate Court
Juvenile Court
Commercial Court
Number
62 people
1266 people
47 people
Industrial Relations Court
184 people
Industrial Relations Court – Ad Hoc Judges
152 people
Fisheries Court
Fisheries Court – Ad Hoc Judges
Anticorruption Court
Anticorruption Court – Ad Hoc Judges
34 people
46 people
250 people
128 people
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
74
Two Supreme Court justices passed away during 2011. In the Public Courts,
4 judges at first instance retired. In the Religious Courts, 11 judges at first
instance passed away, and 7 at the appellate level. IN the State Administrative
Courts, 2 judges retired and 1 judge passed away at the appellate level,
while in the Military Courts, 1 judge at first instance and two appellate judges
retired.
2. Promotion and transfer of non-technical staff
As of the end of 2011, the majority of structural positions in the Supreme
Court were filled. The positions that were vacant were as follows: in the
Registry, 2 echelon IV positions; in the Directorate General of Public Courts,
1 echelon II structural positions, 5 echelon III positions and 1 echelon IV
position; in the Directorate General of Religious Courts, 1 echelon III position
and 1 echelon IV position; and in the Directorate General of Military and State
Administrative Courts, 4 structural echelon IV positions; In the Research and
Development and Education and Training sector, 1 echelon III position and
3 echelon IV position; in the Supervisory Board, 1 echelon IV position, and in
the Administrative Affairs Board, 5 echelon II positions, 2 echelon III positions
and 2 echelon IV positions.
A large number of echelon II, III and IV structural vacancies arose during
2011 due to promotions and transfers to echelon 1 positions in the Supreme
Court. These vacancies are expected to be filled at the start of 2012 through
the Supreme Court’s normal promotion and transfer process.
IV. HUMAN RESOURCES PROFILE IN THE SUPREME COURT
AND THE FOUR SUBORDINATE COURTS
1. Distribution of human resources by sex
Table 5
Staffing Composition of the Supreme Court and the Four Subordinate Courts by Sex
Sex
Supreme
Court
Appellate Courts
Courts of First
Instance
Total
Male
1.246
4.242
18.577
24.065
67%
Female
575
2.512
8.521
11.608
33%
Total
1.821
6.754
27.098
35.673
100%
%
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
75
Table 6
Distribution of judges of the four court jurisdictions by sex
Sex
Public Courts
Jml
%
Female
954
Male
2973
Total
3927
Military
Courts
Religious Courts
Jml
%
Jml
%
24%
782
22%
15
76%
2837
78%
80
100%
3619
100%
95
State
Administrative
Courts
Jml
%
16%
83
26%
84%
237
74%
100%
320
100%
Table 7
Distribution of Registrars and Bailiffs by Sex
Sex
Public Courts
Jml
%
Religious
Courts
Jml
%
Military
Courts
Jml
%
State
Administrative
Courts
Jml
%
Female
1.996
33.83%
1415
39.08%
23
35.97%
263
66.80%
Male
3.904
66.17%
2206
60.92%
40
64.03%
131
33.20%
Total
5.900
100%
3621
100%
63
100%
394
100%
2. Distribution of human resources by rank and grade
Figure 1:
Distribution of human resources by rank and grade in the Supreme Court
and the four subordinate courts per December 2011
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
76
Table 8
Recapitulation of Employees of the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts by
rank/grade in 2010 and 2011
No
Rank/Grade
1
IV/e
377
218
2
IV/d
497
387
3
IV/c
1175
1160
4
IV/b
1427
1374
5
IV/a
4125
3082
6
III/d
2895
4517
7
III/c
3578
4757
8
III/b
5539
5942
9
III/a
8979
7865
10
II/d
1692
1287
11
II/c
2038
1871
12
II/b
2083
1657
13
II/a
1351
1406
14
I/d
104
56
15
I/c
128
94
16
I/b
17
I/a
Total
2010
2011
35.988
35.673
The decline in the number of employees in 2011 was due to the fact that
no new candidate civil servants or candidate judges were recruited during
that year, while the outstanding 315 vacancies were caused by employees
retiring, passing away or resigning, with the details being 22 in the Supreme
Court, 67 in the Appellate Courts and 226 in the Courts of First Instance.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
77
3. Distribution of human resources by age group
Figure 2
Distribution of human resources by age group in the Supreme Court and
its subordinate courts
4. Distribution of human resources by education
Table 9
Distribution of human resources by education in the Supreme Court and its
subordinate courts
EDUCATION
Supreme
Court
Appellate
Courts
Courts of First
Instance
Total
2010
2011
2010
2011
2010
2011
2010
S-3
20
32
18
20
11
15
49
2011
67
S-2
243
348
625
697
1305
2482
2173
3527
20.666
S-1
765
930
3.320
3.324
15.830
16.412
19.915
D-III
41
98
333
166
1025
1148
1399
1412
SMU
530
450
1.652
986
10.025
7.934
12.207
9.370
SMP
28
31
16
64
117
455
161
550
SD
48
33
4
12
32
36
84
81
TOTAL
1.675
1.922
5.968
5.269
28.345
28.482
35.988
35.673
There was a significant growth in the number of employees with master’s
degrees and doctorates in the Supreme Court, Appellate Courts and Courts
of First Instance.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
78
Figure 3
Distribution of human resources by education in the Supreme Court and
its subordinate courts
5. Comparison between number of technical and non-technical
employees in the court system, 2011
Table 10
Number of technical and non-technical employees in the four court jurisdictions.
Public Courts
No.
Religious Courts
Military Courts
Level
State
Administrative
Courts
Tech
nical
Non
Technical
Tech
nical
Non
Technical
Tech
nical
Non
Technical
Tech
nical
Non
Technical
1.
Appellate
Courts
1068
1070
661
778
83
117
56
75
2.
Courts
of First
Instance
8759
8904
6579
5798
477
494
342
412
9827
9974
7240
6576
560
611
398
487
Total
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
79
6. Distribution of judges in the four court jurisdictions
Table 11
Number of judges in the four court jurisdictions
Public Courts
No
Position
Religious Courts
Military Courts
Appellate
Level
First
instance
Appellate
Level
First
instance
Appellate
Level
First
instance
State Administrative
Courts
Appellate
First
Level
instance
1
President
30
340
29
349
4
15
4
23
2
Deputy
President
28
266
29
268
-
12
10
21
3
Appellate
Judge
480
-
335
-
8
-
27
-
4
Judge
Total
-
2783
-
2609
-
56
-
235
538
3389
393
3226
12
83
41
279
3927
3619
95
320
Figure 4
number of Judges in the Four Court Jurisdictions
7. Distribution of Registrars and Bailiffs at the Appellate and First
instance Levels
Table 12
Number of Registrars and Bailiffs at the Appellate and First instance Levels
No
Appellate Level
(Registrars)
First instance (Registrars
and Bailiffs
1
Public Courts
530
5370
2
Religious Courts
State Administrative
Courts
Military Courts
268
3353
71
394
15
63
TOTAL
884
9180
3
4
Court Jurisdiction
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
80
V. Asset Declarations
The Supreme Court always fulfills its obligations to submit asset declarations in a
timely fashion. A total of 10,851 officials in the Supreme Court and its subordinate
courts are categorized as officials who are required to report their assets. A total
of 256 (90.14%) of officials in the Supreme Court have reported their assets, while
in total 9,514 (87.68%) of officials have reported their assets to the state.
At the national level, the Supreme Court occupies first place in the reporting
of assets to the state so that the Supreme Court is capable of serving as an
example to other government state ministries / institutions.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
81
CHAPTER
6
BUDGET ALLOCATION AND
REALIZATION
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 5
82
Chapter VI
BUDGET ALLOCATION AND REALIZATION
I. GENERAL SUPREME COURT BUDGET MANAGEMENT
POLICIES
A number of Supreme Court budget management policies in 2011 that are
worthy of note are as follows:
1. In order to accelerate the budget warrant (DIPA) process for fiscal year 2011,
the Supreme Court issued regulations on the appointment of a spending/
purchases controller, guidelines on the budget payments, and general cost
standards for fiscal year 2011.
2. Revision of the 2011 budget warrants (DIPA);
3. The Supreme Court’s 2011 budget was based on the restructuring program
and activities;
4. Guidelines for the implementation of the Government Regulation on the
treatment of non-tax revenues.
II. STRATEGIC MEASURES IN THE BUDGET MANAGEMENT
SECTOR
1. Policies for the implementation of the 2011 RKA-KL and DIPA:
a. The Supreme Court made cost savings of 10% of the 2011 budget
ceiling.
b. The Supreme Court was rewarded for the costs savings it made, in the
form of 10% x Rp 10,639,012,349, which amounts to Rp 1,063,901,000.
c. Comprehensiveness of supporting data (TOR and RAB).
d. Preparation of programs and budgets
e. Gender responsive budgeting
f.
Budget transparency
g. Progress in the implementation of the guidelines for the recovery of
state losses, including:
1) Efforts to recover state losses
2) Follow-up action to recover state losses.
During 2011, the following cases involving state losses were
received and resolved by the Supreme Court’s Financial Bureau:
Based on data supplied by the Financial Bureau, of 111 cases of
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
83
state losses that were acted upon, the amounts that were recovered
during 2011 were as follows:
Table1
State Losses in Rupiah
NO.
Type of Case
Number of
Cases
Amount
Installment
1.
Treasury claims
5
2.
Restitution claims
76
1.299.817.689
326.286.661
973.531.028
3.
Third party claims
30
1.292.226.224,13
915.470.729,65
376.755.494,48
111
3.730.512.863,13
1.284.614.790,65
2.445.898.072,48
Total
1.138.468.950
Outstanding
42.857.400
1.095.611.550
2. Upgrading of courts and establishment of new courts
In 2011, the Supreme Court conducted an inventory in respect of 46
proposals for the upgrading of District Courts and 49 proposals for the
upgrading of Religious Courts. The results of the said inventory have yet to
be forwarded to the Minister of the State Apparatus and Bureaucratic Reform
as earlier proposals submitted to the minister on 11 January 2010 have yet
to be acted upon.
The Supreme Court also conducted an inventory on the proposed
establishment of 45 new courts, consisting of 12 District Courts and 33
Religious Courts.
In 2011, two inaugurations of new courts took place, namely:
a. In the office of the Regent of Labuan Bajo, Nusa Tenggara Timur
Province, 6 District Courts and 16 Religious Courts were officially
inaugurated based on:
1) Extracts from Republic of Indonesia presidential Decree Number 3
of 2011, dated 26 January 2008, on the establishment of Religious
Courts in Banjar, Amurang, Marisa, Parigi, Andolo, Pasarwajo,
Simpang Tiga Redelong, Padang Sidempuan, Muntok, Lebong,
Batu Licin, Taliwang, Labuan Bajo, Nunukan and Arso;
2) Extracts from Republic of Indonesia Presidential Decree Number 20
of 2009, dated 21 July 2009, on the establishment of District Courts
in Oelamasi, Andolo, Pasarwajo and Pasangkayu.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
84
b. In the State Administrative Court of Tanjung Pinang (Batam), one
new document and 2 State Administrative Courts were officialized
based on:
1) Extracts from Republic of Indonesia Presidential Decree Number 26
of 2006, dated 12 December 2006, on the establishment of District
Courts, including the Batu Licin District Court;
2) Extracts from Republic of Indonesia Presidential Decree Number
18 of 2011, dated 11 July 2011, on the establishment of State
Administrative Courts in Tanjung Pinang and Serang.
III.SUPREME COURT BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2011
1. The Supreme Court’s budget, in accordance with the interim and
definitive budget ceilings set out the Joint Decree of the Minister of
National Development Planning/Head of Bappenas and the Minister of
Finance, 0181/M.PPN/04/2010, SE-120/MK/2010 dated 6 April 2010, on
indicative ceilings and Draft Preliminary Government Work Program
for 2011, Minister of Finance Circular Number SE-294/MK.02/2010
dated 24 June 2010 on interim budget ceilings for state ministries /
institutions for fiscal year 2011, Minister of Finance Circular number
SE-676/MK.02/2010 dated 3 November 2010 on definitive budget
ceilings for fiscal year 2011, was set at Rp 6,055,300,000,000.
If we compare this with the Supreme Court’s definitive budget ceiling for
2010, which was Rp 5,219,948,230,000, the budget for 2011 saw an increase
of Rp 833,351,770,000 or 16%. This amount was set out in the Supreme
Court’s 2011 RKA-KL, covering 7 echelon 1 line units, and 798 regional line
units that have their own operational budgets.
2. Budget allocation by program type
Table 2
Budget Allocation by Program Type
No
Program
1
Management support and implementation of other
technical duties
Amount
Rp. 3.354.924.900,-
2
Improvement in Supreme Court infrastructure and facilities
Rp. 1. 272.230.200,-
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
85
3
Resolution of Supreme Court cases
Rp.
90.048.600,-
4
Improving management of the Public Courts
Rp.
148.481.000,-
5
Improving management of the Religious Courts
Rp.
69.948.800,-
6
Improving management of the Military Courts and State
Administrative Courts
Rp.
19.766.500,-
7
Education and training for Supreme Court officials
Rp.
78.600.000,-
8
Supervision and Improving Accountability of Supreme
Court officials
Rp.
25.300.000,-
Total
Rp. 6.055.300.000,-
3. Budget allocation by Expenditure Type (in accordance with definitive
ceiling)
Table 3
Budget Allocation by Expenditure Type
No
Budget Allocation
Total
%
1.
Staff Expenditure
Rp
3.935.453.368.000,-
( 71,94%)
2.
Goods and services
Expenditure
Rp
838.970.462.000,-
( 14,04%)
3.
Capital Expenditure
Rp
1.280.876.170.000,-
( 14,02%)
Rp
6.055.300.000.000,-
Total
( 100%)
4. Budget allocations for center and regions
Table 4
Budget allocations for center and regions
No
Expenditure
Allocation
Amount
%
1.
Center
Rp
2.658.437.534.000,-
( 43,90%)*
2.
Regions
Rp
3.396.862.466.000,-
( 56,10%)
Rp
6.055.300.000.000,-
Total
( 100%)
*) include Supreme Court performance allowances (805 line units in the
center and regions) amounting to Rp 2,000,050,000,000.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
86
5. Budget Allocations per Organizational Unit
Table 5
Budget Allocations per Organizational Unit
No
Unit
Amount
%
1.
Administrative Affairs
Rp. 5.627.155.100,-
92,92%
2.
Registry
Rp.
90.048.600,-
1,48%
3.
Directorate General of Public Courts
Rp. 149.481.000,-
2,48%
4.
Directorate General of Religious Courts
Rp.
64.948.800,-
1,07%
5.
Director General of Military Courts and State
Administrative Courts
Rp.
19.766.500,-
0,33%
6.
Research and development, Education and
training
Rp.
78.600.000,-
1,29%
7.
Supreme Court Supervisory Board
Rp.
25.300.000,-
0,41%
Total
Rp. 6.055.300.000,-
*) include Supreme Court performance allowances (805 line units in the
center and regions) amounting to Rp 2,000,050,000,000.
6. Budget Allocations per Echelon I unit
Table 6
Budget Allocations per Echelon I unit
Expenditure
No
Unit
1.
Administrative Affairs
2.
Staff
Goods and
services
Total
Capital
3.865.771.463
494.480.712
1.266.902.925
Registry
38.814.391
50.030.809
1.203.400
Rp.
3.
Directorate General of
Public Courts
10.724.565
137.053.125
1.703.310
Rp. 149.481.000,-
4.
Directorate General of
Religious Courts
6.149.782
55.477.043
3.321.975
Rp.
64.948.800,-
5.
Directorate General of
Military Courts and State
Administrative Courts
4.935.579
14.321.861
509.060
Rp.
19.766.500,-
6.
Research and
development, Education
and training
7.282.155
65.282.345
6.035.500
Rp.
78.600.000,-
7.
Supreme Court
Supervisory Board
1.775.433
22.324.567
1.200.000
Rp.
25.300.000,-
3.935.453.368
838.970.462
1.280.876.170
Total
Rp. 5.627.155.100,90.048.600,-
Rp. 6.055.300.000,-
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
87
2011 Supreme Court Budget Revisions
In line with the agreement between the Government and the House of
Representatives’ Budget Committee regarding revisions to the 2011 National
Budget, the Supreme Court, based on Minister of Finance Circular Number
SE-442/MK.02/2011 dated 8 August 2011 on amendment of the budgets of
state ministries / institutions, the Supreme Court received additional funding/
rewards for budget optimization amounting to 1,063,901,000, which was
allocated between all of the Supreme Court’s echelon I units. As a result, the
2011 budget ceiling became Rp 6,056,838,901,000.
a. Budget allocation per program
Table 7
Budget allocation per program
No
Program
Amount
1
Management Support and Other Technical Duties
Rp. 4.351.645.523,-
2
Improving Supreme Court Infrastructure and facilities
Rp. 1. 272.705.200,-
3
S
Rp.
93.056.600,-
4
Improving management of the Public Courts
Rp.
149.561.000,-
5
Improving management of the Religious Courts
Rp.
65.088.800,-
6
Improving management of the Military Courts and State
Administrative Courts
Rp.
19.886.500,-
7
Research and development, education and training
Rp.
78.690.000,-
8
Supervision and improving accountability of Supreme Court
officials
Rp.
26.205.278,-
Total
Rp. 6.056.838.901,-
b. Budget allocation by type of expenditure
Table 8
Budget allocation by type of expenditure
Expenditure Allocation
Amount
%
a.
Staff Expenditure
Rp
3.935.453.368.000,-
( 64,97%)
b.
Goods and services Expenditure
Rp
828.172.670.000,-
( 13,68%)
c.
Capital expenditure
Rp
1.293.212.863.000,-
( 21,35%)
Total
6.056.838.901.000,-
( 100%)
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
88
c. Budget Allocations to Center and Regions
Table 9
Changes in Budget Allocations to Center and Regions
Budget Allocation
Amount
%
a.
Center
Rp
2.659.442.534.000,-
( 43,91%)*
b.
Regions
Rp
3.397.396.367.000,-
( 56,10%)
Rp
6.056.838.901.000,-
Total
( 100%)
d. Budget allocations per Organizational Unit
Table 10
Changes in Budget allocations per Organizational Unit
No
Unit
Amount
%
1.
Administrative Affairs
Rp. 5.624.350.723,-
92,87%
2.
Registry
Rp.
93.056.600,-
1,53%
3.
Directorate General of Public Courts
Rp. 149.561.000,-
2,47%
4.
Directorate General of Religious Courts
Rp.
65.088.800,-
1,07%
5.
Directorate General of Military Courts and
State Administrative Courts
Rp.
19.886.500,-
0,33%
6.
Research and development, education and
training
Rp.
78.690.000,-
1,30%
7.
Supreme Court Supervisory Board
Rp.
26.205.000,-
0,43%
Total
Rp. 6.056.838.901,-
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
89
IV. SUPREME COURT BUDGET REALIZATION IN FISCAL YEAR
2011
1. Budget Realization
a. Supreme Court Financial Statement for Fiscal year 2011 by Type
of Line unit (in rupiah)
No
Line
unit
Ceiling
Revised Ceiling
Realization (Gross
to Second Half of
2011)
Unspent Budget
Funds
(%)
1
Pusat
2.543.088.934.000
2.515.037.450.000
997.727.125.541
1.517.310.324.459
39,67
2
Daerah
3.092.826.162.000
3.109.260.595.000
2.007.820.577.942
1.101.440.017.058
64,58
5.635.915.096.000
5.624.298.045.000
3.005.547.703.483
2.618.750.341.517
53,44
Total
(Note: the above data has not been reconciled)
b. Supreme Court Financial Statement for Fiscal year 2011 by
Echelon I unit (in rupiah)
No
1
Name of Line
unit
Secretariat
Ceiling
Revised Ceiling
Realization
Unspent Budget
Funds
(%)
3.292.672.048.000
3.309.106.481.000
2.145.296.132.438
1.163.810.348.562
64,83
90.048.600.000
93.056.600.000
75.057.106.576
17.999.493.424
80,66
2
Registry
3
Administrative
Affairs
2.343.243.048.000
2.315.191.564.000
860.251.571.045
1.454.939.992.955
37,16
4
Supervisory
Board
25.300.000.000
26.205.278.000
20.889.995.906
5.315.282.094
79,72
5
Research and
development,
education and
training
78.600.000.000
78.600.000.000
62.806.556.684
15.793.443.316
79,91
6
Directorate
General of Public
Courts
61.377.600.000
61.377.600.000
37.105.359.789
24.272.240.211
60,45
7
Directorate
General of
Religious Courts
45.728.786.000
45.728.786.000
27.016.897.947
18.711.888.053
59,08
8
Directorate
General of
Military Courts
and State
Administrative
Courts
14.139.500.000
14.139.500.000
10.546.740.076
3.592.759.924
74,59
5.951.109.582.000
5.943.405.809.000
3.238.970.360.461
2.704.435.448.539
54,50
Total
(Note: the above data has not been reconciled)
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
90
c. Financial Statement of the Supreme Court for fiscal year 2011 by
Program (in rupiah)
No
Program
Ceiling
Revised Ceiling
Realization
Unspent Budget
Funds
(%)
1
Management support and
other technical duties
-
-
-
-
-
2
No program
3
No program
4.361.143.896.000
-
4.351.361.845.000
2.503.605.067.277
1.847.756.777.723
57,54
4
Infrastructure and facilities
improvement program
1.274.771.200.000
1.272.936.200.000
501.956.056.206
770.980.143.794
39,43
5
Supervision and Improved
accountability
25.300.000.000
26.205.278.000
20.889.995.906
5.315.282.094
79,72
6
Education and training
78.600.000.000
78.600.000.000
62.806.556.684
15.793.443.316
79,91
7
Resolution of
Court cases
90.048.600.000
93.056.600.000
75.057.106.576
17.999.493.424
80,66
8
Improving management in
the Public Courts
61.377.600.000
61.377.600.000
37.105.359.789
24.272.240.211
60,45
9
Improving management in
the Religious Courts
45.728.786.000
45.728.786.000
27.003.477.947
18.725.308.053
59,05
10
Improving management in
the Military Courts and State
Administrative Courts
14.139.500.000
14.139.500.000
10.546.740.076
3.592.759.924
74,59
5.951.109.582.000
5.943.405.809.000
3.238.970.360.461
2.704.435.448.539
54,50
Total
Supreme
-
-
-
-
(Note: the above data has not been reconciled)
d. Supreme Court Financial Statement for Fiscal year 2011 by Type of
expenditure (in rupiah)
No
Type of
expenditure
Ceiling
Revised Ceiling
Realization
Unspent Budget
Funds
(%)
1
Staff
expenditure
3.941.126.093.000
3.935.218.996.000
2.270.129.273.306
1.665.089.722.694
57,69
2
Goods and
services
expenditure
720.847.254.000
713.575.813.000
451.798.551.201
261.777.261.799
63,31
3
Capital
expenditure
1.289.136.235.000
1.294.611.000.000
517.042.535.954
777.568.464.046
39,94
Total
5.951.109.582.000
5.943.405.809.000
3.238.970.360.461
2.704.435.448.539
54,50
(Note: the above data has not been reconciled)
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
91
V. SUPREME COURT BUDGET ALLOCATION FOR 2012
In accordance with National Development Planning Minister/Head of Bappenas
and Minister of Finance Circular Number 0091/M.PPN/03/2011 and SE-189/
MK.02/2011 dated 31 March 2011,m on indicative ceilings and preliminary
government work plan for 2012, an indicative ceiling of Rp 4,930,693,700,000
has been set for the Supreme Court, which figure is allocated as between 8
programs, as shown in the following table:
Table 11
Allocated as between 8 programs
No
Program
Total
1
Management support and other technical duties
Rp
3.510.999.700.000
2
Infrastructure and facilities improvement program
Rp
1.063.199.000.000
3
Supervision and Improved accountability
Rp
21.324.000.000
4
Education and training
Rp
67.040.000.000
5
Resolution of Supreme Court cases
Rp
71.973.600.000
6
Improving management in the Public Courts
Rp
124.233.300.000
7
Improving management in the Religious Courts
Rp
51.624.100.000
8
Improving management in the Military Courts and
State Administrative Courts
Rp
20.300.000.000
Rp
4.930.693.700.000
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
92
CHAPTER
7
MATERIAL: Assets, Infrastructure and
Information Technology Facilities
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 6
93
Chapter VII
ASSETS, INFRASTRUCTURE AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES
I. IMPROVING AND REGULARIZING COURT
INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES
Efforts to improve court infrastructure and facilities continued throughout 2011.
These efforts included land procurement, the construction of new offices and
official residences, and the procurement of vehicles and office equipment, and
court requisites, with the details being as shown in the following table:
Table 1
Improvements to infrastructure and facilities in fiscal year 2011
BENTUK SARANA
DAN PRASARANA
NO
LINGKUNGAN PERADILAN
UMUM
AGAMA
MILITARY
TOTAL
TUN
1.
Land for offices
5 locations
36 locations
-
-
41 locations
2.
Land for official
residences
-
4 lakoasi
1
Locations
-
5 locations
3.
Construction of
offices
29 locations
38 locations
3 locations
2 locations
72 locations
4.
Further construction
of offices
26 locations
29 locations
6 locations
1 locations
62 locations
5.
Extension of offices
33 locations
6 locations
-
3 loasi
42 locations
6.
Rehabilitation of
offices
88 locations
30 locations
-
10 locations
128 locations
7.
Construction of
official residences
4 locations
28 locations
2 locations
1 locations
35 locations
8.
Rehabilitation of
official residences
36 locations
14 locations
-
1 locations
51 locations
Besides the above infrastructure, in order to ensure the smooth discharge of the
principal functions and duties of the courts, the Supreme Court allocated funding
for the purchase of official vehicles, as shown in the following table:
Table 2
Procurement of Official Vehicles for the Courts in Fiscal year 2011
No.
1.
Jurisdiction
Public Courts
Official Vehicles
Four Wheel
Two Wheel
135 unit
81 unit
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 7
94
2.
Religious Courts
153 unit
41 unit
3.
Military Courts
20 unit
1 unit
4.
State Administrative Courts
30 unit
11 unit
Total
338 unit
134 unit
The efforts to improve facilities, particularly through the construction of offices,
were more intense than in 2010. Overall, the improvements in office buildings
over the past five years are as shown in the following table:
Table 3
Improvements in Office Buildings, 2007-2011
No
Jurisdiction
1.
Year
Total
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Public Courts
26 locations
7 locations
38 locations
28 locations
29 locations
128 locations
2.
Religious
Courts
81 locations
22 locations
48 locations
22 locations
38 locations
221 locations
3.
Military Courts
3 locations
5 locations
1 location
5 locations
3 locations
17 locations
4.
State
Administrative
Courts
1 location
1 location
4 locations
2 locations
2 locations
10 locations
The Supreme Court has also worked to improve court infrastructure, as shown by
the proposed budgetary spending on court infrastructure development over the
coming years, as shown in the following table:
Table 4
2011-2013 Spending Plan
No.
1.
Program
Supreme Court
Infrastructure and
facilities improvement
program
Tahun
2011
2012
2013
Rp. 1,272,230.2
(million rupiah)
Rp. 963,199.0
(million rupiah)
Rp. 935,975.2
(million rupiah)
In order to support the operation of the anticorruption courts, the Supreme Court
has also improved the infrastructure and facilities available to these courts, as
shown in the following table:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 7
95
Table 5
Improvements in the infrastructure and facilities of new anticorruption courts
No
Type of Infrastructure
Number of Courts
1.
Procurement of land
15
2.
Construction of office building
6
In addition to the above, the Supreme Court has also allocated funding to the
anticorruption courts for other types of infrastructure, as shown in the following
table:
Table 6
Procurement of infrastructure and facilities for the anticorruption courts
No.
Type of Procurement
Appellate Level
First instance
Level
Total Line
units
1.
4-wheeled vehicles
33 unit
33 unit
66
2.
2-wheeled vehicles
33 unit
33 unit
66
3.
Computers
33 unit
33 unit
66
4.
Laptops
33 unit
33 unit
66
5.
Other office inventories
33 packages
33 packages
66
II. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES
As part of the effort to improve overall organizational performance, the Supreme
Court is availing of IT to both support office operations in general and work
processes in the Supreme Court and judicial bodies, and to help provide
information services to the public.
During the course of 2011, seven procurements of IT equipment were made for
the following purposes:
·
Permitting access to case information to the public at large;
·
Providing places for the keeping of the Supreme Court’s applications;
·
Providing facilities through which the public can lodge complaints;
·
Providing a means of storing judicial decisions;
·
Providing backup for the Supreme Court website and IT system;
·
Providing email facilities;
·
Providing facilities for the sending of data on case costs via text message;
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 7
96
·
Providing facilities for the uploading of decisions by courts throughout
Indonesia;
·
Providing information on tenders for the procurement of goods and services
in the Supreme Court;
·
Improving internet capacity;
·
Seeking and exchanging data and information online;
·
Providing an adequate data center for the Supreme Court, including the
necessary electrical, cooling and security features.
·
Providing better integrated system monitoring and management facilities so
as to help overcome technical problems;
·
Providing high speed communications channels within the Supreme Court
building, and increasing the capacity and scope of the local computer
network.
During the course of 2011, a number of IT initiates were also pursued in different line
units of the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts, such as the maintenance
and development of the human resources, correspondence and case reporting
systems in the Directorate General of Public Courts; the development of an email
system and the introduction of Google apps in the Directorate General of Military
and State Administrative Courts; and improvements to the human resources
system and development of a case administration information system laboratory
in the Directorate General of Religious Courts.
The Supreme Court Supervisory Board also developed a number of applications,
such as its text-message complaint application, correspondence application,
archiving application, human resources database application, and fixed
asset verification application. Meanwhile the Research and Development and
Education and Training Center upgraded its local are network so as to support
the education process for judges, registrars, and clerks of the Supreme Court. In
addition, various other line units, such as individual courts, continued to upgrade
their hardware infrastructure as required.
The use of IT facilities so as to facilitate access to information and public services
is absolutely essential. One medium used for this purpose is the websites
operated by the courts and other line units. At the present time, the Indonesian
court system operates 829 websites around the country, which figure marks an
increase of 3.625% compared with the previous year, when the figure was 800.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 7
97
The Supreme Court now has a tool to monitor the development of court websites
in all four court jurisdictions, as can be seen from the following picture. This tool
is capable of checking the status of a website based on the following categories:
active, non-active or nonexistent.
Appearance of Court Website Monitoring Application.
Left: Statistics and status of websites under the Supreme Court
Right: System display for monitoring electrical status in Supreme Court’s data
center.
The details regarding the development of court websites throughout Indonesia
are as shown in the following table:
Table 7
Situation as regards Court Websites
No
Peradilan
Status
Available
Not Available
Number of
Courts
1.
Public Courts
341
26
367
2.
Military Courts
23
0
23
3.
Religious Courts
373
15
388
4.
State Administrative
Courts
30
2
32
5.
Echelon 1 Line units
7
0
7
774
43
817
Total
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 7
98
In order to be able to furnish information quickly and cheaply to the public, the
question of human resources is of the utmost importance in the management
IT infrastructure and facilities. At the present time, the Supreme Court has 186
qualified staff whose principal duties are related to IT. Throughout Indonesia,
there are 1,335 qualified staff whose principal duties are related to IT.
In addition, the Supreme Court has completed the implementation of its 20112014 IT Master Plan, and is currently in the process of synchronizing IT agendas
and initiatives within the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts.
The Supreme Court has also completed the development of an application to
integrate information produced by other applications. This application permits
various data and information to be displayed in a more integrated manner.
For the future, the Supreme Court considers it necessary to reengineer its
business processes so as to be able to make maximum use of the various IT
facilities that are available to it. Such reengineering process is also in line with
the national bureaucratic reform agenda, as part of which the Supreme Court
will be the first state ministry / institution to hold trials on the implementation of
bureaucratic reform.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 7
99
CHAPTER
8
LAW AND JUSTICE RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, EDUCATION AND
TRAINING
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 7
100
Chapter VIII
LAW AND JUSTICE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT,
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
I. THE REFORM AGENDA
Reform the Integrated Candidate Judge Education and Training Program
(PPC)
The Integrated Candidate Judge Training Program commenced in 2010, in
accordance with Supreme Court Directive Number 169/KMA/SK/X/2010 on
the adoption and implementation of the integrated candidate judge training
education and training program.
This program represents the integration of centralized education and training
programs and in-house training in the courts for a period of almost 2 years. The
program is intended to produce judges who are ready to serve in court, and is
the result of collaboration with a number of donor countries and comparative
studies undertaken by the Law and Justice Research, Development, Education
and Training Center in a number of countries in Europe and Asia in 2008 and
2009.
II. STRATEGIC MEASURES IN THE RESEARCH,
DEVELOPMENT, EDUCATION AND TRAINING FIELDS
1. Implementation of stage I of the candidate judge education program
(Integrated PPC)
The Integrated PPC will be implemented based on the following stages:
a. Preparation for implementation of the Integrated PPC.
The preparations include the designation of the courts where inhouse training will be provided, provision of training of mentors, and
socialization of the Integrated PPC in the training courts. Among the
policies that have been adopted in the context of implementation of the
Integrated PPC are the following:
1) Designation of training courts
The traineeship system is based on the learning-by-doing model.
The training program has been designed to equip the participants
in the Integrated PPC to become familiar from an early stage with
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
101
the work flow in court through mentoring, guidance, supervision
and direct evaluation by mentors in each judicial line unit. Based
on Supreme Court Directive Number 003/KMA/SK/I/2011 (on
designation of training courts for the Integrated PPC), the following
courts have been designated as training courts at first instance:
a) Public Court System
Judicial Region
Surabaya Appellate Court
Courts of First Instance
1.
Gresik District Court
2.
Sidoarjo District Court
Yogyakarta Appellate Court
3.
Yogyakarta District Court
Semarang Appellate Court
4.
Ungaran District Court
5.
Surakarta District Court
6.
Cibinong District Court
7.
Bekasi District Court
8.
Bandung District Court
9.
Bale Bandung District Court
Bandung Appellate Court
Tanjung Karang Appellate Court
10. Tanjung Karang District Court
b) Religious Court System
Judicial Region
Surabaya Religious Appellate Court
Courts of First Instance
1.
Surabaya Religious Court
2.
Sidoarjo Religious Court
3.
Semarang Religious Court
4.
Surakarta Religious Court
5.
Bekasi Religious Court
6.
Bandung Religious Court
Banten Religious Appellate Court
7.
Tangerang Religious Court
Yogyakarta Religious Appellate Court
8.
Yogyakarta Religious Court
Semarang Religious Appellate Court
Bandung Religious Appellate Court
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
102
c) State Administrative Court System
Judicial Region
Courts of First Instance
Surabaya Administrative Appellate Court
1.
Surabaya Administrative Court
Semarang Administrative Appellate Court
2.
Semarang Administrative Court
Bandung Administrative Appellate Court
3.
Bandung Administrative Court
2) Appointment of Integrated PPC Tutors
The Integrated PPC tutors consist of functional judges in the Law
and Justice Research, Development, Education and Training Center,
whose duty it is to provide guidance on the overall implementation
of the Integrated PPC, whether in the Education and Training
Center or in the training courts. The tutors also have the duty of
comprehensively monitoring and evaluating the implementation
of the Integrated PPC, and of conducting micro appraisal of the
progress achieved by the candidate judges.
3) Appointment of Integrated PPC Mentors
The mentors are judges who have been appointed to mentor
candidate judges in the field during their traineeships in court.
The criteria for the selection of a mentor judge are as follows: (a)
minimum of 10 years experience as a judge; (b) minimum grade
III/d; (c) has participated in training of mentors; and (d) understands
and is capable of applying adult learning techniques. To date, 63
judges of first instance have been appointed as mentors based on
Head of the Law and Justice Research, Development, Education
and Training Center Directive Number 20/BLD/SK/II/2011.
4) Training of Mentors (TOM)
Mentors are required to participate in training of mentors. This
is intended to prepare the mentors for their assignments and to
ensure consistency as regards the implementation of the Integrated
PPC given that it operates in different courts.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
103
5) Socialization of Integrated PPC
Socialization is carried out in courts of first instance that have
been designated as training courts based on Supreme Court
Directive Number 003/KMA/SK/I/2011. The socialization effort is
the responsibility of the members of the tutor team and structural
officials and staff of the Law and Justice Research, Development,
Education and Training Center.
b. Implementation of Stage I of the Integrated PPC
Stage I of the Integrated PPC for candidate judges in the fifth intake
(selected as candidate civil servants in 2010) was participated in by 200
individuals. The stages gone through by the candidates judges include:
1) Education and Training I, Integrated PPC orientation (March-April
2011)
After the completion of the pre-appointment education and training
program, the 200 candidate judges participated in an orientation
program on the Integrated PPC.
2) Traineeship I in court as administrator (April-September 2011)
The candidate judges were directly placed in their respective
training courts. For the next 22 weeks they performed administrative
duties in various units and in the Registry, guided and assisted by
their mentors.
3) Education and training II in the Education and Training Center
(September-November 2011)
The candidate judges participated in Education and Training II at
the Education and Training Center. The course, which lasted 13
weeks, was intended to prepare them to work as deputy registrars.
The candidate judges were taught about procedural processes and
the principal duties and functions of a deputy registrar, as well as
the skills required of a young judge.
4) Traineeship II in court as deputy registrar (December 2011-June
2012).
The candidate judges are now back in their training courts to serve
apprenticeships as local deputy registrars responsible for handling
a designated number of cases. This traineeship will continue for 26
weeks, ending in June 2012.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
104
2. Collaboration with the Sudiecentrum Rechtpleging (SSR),
Netherlands
Supported by the National Legal Reform Program, in November 2010 the SSR
paid a visit to the Supreme Court’s Law and Justice Research, Development,
Education and Training Center for the purpose of charting out the possibility
of collaboration between the two judicial education institutions. This was
followed by the signing of a Letter of Intent by the directors of both institutions
for the purpose of further developing collaboration in the following areas:
a. Consultation between the directors of the two institutions;
b. Improving collaboration in the judicial training field;
c. Long-distance consultations in respect of the above two points.
As follow-up to the signing of the LOI, the director of the Law and Justice
Research, Development, Education and Training Center paid a working visit
to the SSR to seek advice on how to improve the quality of the Integrated
PPC.
3. Master’s Degree Program in collaboration with the University of
Indonesia’s Faculty of Law, supported by C4J
District Court judges with service periods of between 6 and 15 years were
afforded the opportunity in 2011 of participating in a master of law scholarship
program at the University of Indonesia. The program was availed of by 20
judges, after they had gone through a selection process.
4. Improving the capacity of Human Resources in the Research
Management Field
The Law and Justice Research, Development, Education and Training Center
has carried out a program to upgrade human resources in the Law and
Justice Research, Development, Education and Training Center as regards
research management, with the help of speakers from the Indonesian
Institute of Sciences (LIPI).
III. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The Research and Development Center, as a center of excellence and a “center
of thinkers”, has conducted studies on various actual legal problems. These
studies were intended to help the Supreme Court formulate policies, and to
improve the quality of justice in Indonesia in general.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
105
In 2011, the Research and development Center conducted six field studies, 4
research seminars, 2 training sessions for Research and development Center
staff, and four comparative studies overseas, attended 10 coordination meetings
with other institutions, and participated in one audience with an organization
representing law students.
Studies:
1. Studies in 2011
a. Access on the part of the poor to legal assistance;
b. Position of the Tax Court in the Indonesian Judicial System
c. Penal mediation in the Indonesian criminal justice system
d. Restricting civil appeals so as to ensure simple, cheap and speedy
justice.
e. Formulating an ideal model for the promotion and transfer of officials in
the Indonesian court system.
f.
Restricting criminal appeals so as to ensure simple, cheap and speedy
justice.
2. Seminars
In 2011, the Supreme Court’s Law and Justice Research, Development,
Education and Training Center conducted various field and documentary
studies. Of the 6 research topics covered, 4 draft reports were produced and
discussed at the following seminars:
a. Seminar on Penal mediation in the Indonesian criminal justice system,
Hotel Alila, Jakarta, Wednesday, 26 October 2011.
b. Seminar on access on the part of the poor to legal assistance, Hotel
Red Top, Jakarta, Wednesday, 2 November 2011.
c. Seminar on Position of the Tax Court in the Indonesian Judicial System,
Hotel Red Top, Jakarta, Wednesday, 9 November 2011.
d. Seminar on formulating an ideal model for the promotion and transfer
of officials in the Indonesian court system, Hotel Red Top, Jakarta,
Wednesday, 16 November 2011.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
106
IV. TECHNICAL LEGAL AND JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND
TRAINING
1. Priority Programs
a. Certification of Anticorruption Court judges
Training for Anticorruption Court judges was provided in order to
equip them with the knowledge they need in connection with crimes
of corruption, professional judicial ethics and the Code of Ethics and
Judicial Conduct. The training involved speakers from various legal
institutions, such as the KPK, Judicial Commission, Ministry of Law and
Human Rights, and institutes of higher education.
The Judicial Technical Education and Training Center has to date issued
certificates to 120 candidate Anticorruption Court judges from the XI
intake. The details are as shown in the following table:
Table 1
Number of Candidate Anticorruption Court Judges from Intake XI receiving certificate
Court Level
Career judges
Ad Hoc Judges
Number
Appellate
10
30
40
First instance
26
54
80
Total
36
84
120
b. Certification of Environmental Law Judges
The Supreme Court has issued Supreme Court Directive Number 134/
KMA/SK/IX/2011 on the certification of environmental judges. As a
follow-up to the issuance of this Supreme Court Directive, the Supreme
Court, in collaboration with the Ministry of the Environment, commenced
preparations for the awarding of Environmental Judge Certificates.
Training of Trainers (TOT), Stage I, was provided in order to identify
suitable trainers for the environmental judge certification program.
During the first stage, the TOT program was participated in by 50
individuals (49 judges from the Public Courts and State Administrative
Courts, and one individual who was not a judge).
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
107
The Preparatory and Teaching team consists of experts, supported by
the Indonesian Center for Environmental Law and the Ministry of the
Environment.
2. Routine Programs
The Supreme Court’s Technical Education and training Center provides
education and training courses on an annual basis for judges, registrars and
bailiffs, as shown in the following table:
Table 2
Education and training for judges, registrars and bailiffs
Training Program
Classification of
Participants
Training of Trainers
Continuing Judicial
Education
a.Judges of the Public
Courts
b.Judges of the
Religious Courts
c.Judges of the State
Administrative Courts
4 days
2.
Training of Mentors as
part of the IPPC
Judges as mentors from
3 court jurisdictions:
Public Courts, Religious
Courts and State
Administrative Courts
5 days
3.
Education and training programs for candidate judges as part of the IPPC,
consisting of trainings and internships:
No
1.
Duration of
Training
Number of
Participants
36
40
22
63
a.Education
and training I
Orientation on IPPC
b.Traineeship
I: trainee
administrators in
the training courts
c.Education
and training II:
Orientation on the
IPPC
a.Candidate judges of
the Public Courts
b.Candidate judges of
the Religious Courts
c.Candidate judges
of the State
Administrative Courts
3 weeks
5 months
3 months
3 months
97
78
25
d.Traineeship II:
Trainee deputy
registrars in the
training courts
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
108
4.
Continuing judicial
education for judges
of first instance
Judges of first instance:
Religious Courts, State
Administrative Courts:
Service of between 1
and 5 years
5 days
159
39
Specialist and certification training for judges of more than 10 years standing,
consisting of:
5.
5.1. Certification,
Sharia Economics
Judges of the Religious
Courts
6 days
50
5.2. Certification for
Mediators
Judges of the Public
Courts
7 days
102
5.3. Certification
for judges of the
Industrial Relations
Court
Judges of the Industrial
Relations Court
6 days
51
5.4. Certification
for judges of the
Fisheries Court
Judges of the Fisheries
court
6 days
50
5.5. Certification
for judges of the
Commercial Court
Judges of the Public
Courts
6 days
100
5.6. Certification
for Judges of the
Anticorruption Courts
a. Career judges
b. Ad Hoc judges
13 days
36
84
6.
Technical-functional
training for Juvenile
judges
6 days
51
7.
Technical-functional
training for
environmental judges
6 days
50
8.
Technical-functional
training for military
judges
Judges of the Military
Courts
6 days
30
9.
Training for registrars/
deputy registrars
a. Public Courts
b. Religious Courts
c. Military Courts
d. State Administrative
Courts
5 days
65
71
25
34
10.
Training for candidate
registrars
a.Public Courts
b.Religious Courts
14 days
48
48
11.
Training for bailiffs/
deputy bailiffs
1.Public Courts bailiffs
2.Religious Courts
bailiffs
5 days
97
99
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
109
12
Training on
procedural law for ad
hoc Anticorruption
Court judges
Ad hoc Anticorruption
Court judges
128
13.
Integrated Training
for judges and
prosecutors
a.Judges
b.Prosecutors
35
20
Total Participants
1.833
3. Collaboration with Third Parties
There were a total of 7 collaborative ventures attended by 343 participants,
which took the form of training, consultation, discussions and dialogues,
namely:
a. Collaboration with the International Labour Organization (ILO) in the
form of a consultation and discussion titled “Consultations for the
development of training curriculum for industrial Relation Court Judges.”
The event was attended by Industrial Relations Court judges at the first
instance and appellate levels.
b. Collaboration with the Women’s Association for Justice Legal Aid
Institute (LBH APIK) on an agreed approach to the handling of cases
involving violence against women using a structural gender legal aid
approach.
c. Collaboration with the Republic of Indonesia Attorney General’s Office
on joint education and training for judges, prosecutors and police
officers so as to achieve a uniformity of perception on law and justice
issues in the handling of cases. Two such joint education and training
programs were held in 2011.
d. Collaboration with Bank Indonesia on the provision of in-depth
knowledge to judges on the banking industry in the form of a dialogue.
Two sessions were organized in 2011.
e. Collaboration with USAID through the Change for Justice program
(C4J) for the purpose of improving the case flow management skills of
judges. The training, which employed case studies from the Law and
Justice Research, Development, Education and Training Center, was
held in Megamendung, Bogor, on 27-30 June 2011.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
110
f.
Collaboration with the Ministry of Finance’s Directorate General of Taxes
for the provision of training on the Judicial Code of Ethics and Conduct
to judges of the Tax Court. The training took place in Jakarta on 28-30
July 2011.
g. Collaboration with the Community Advocacy and Study Institute
(ELSAM) for the purpose of improving the knowledge of judges as
regards human rights, and their application in court administration. The
collaboration took the form of training of trainers (TOT) on human rights,
with the participants consisting of judges, prosecutors, police officers,
correctional institutions, and representatives of the National Human
Rights Commission from Papua. The training was provided in three
stages at the Supreme Court Education and Training Center in Bogor
(19-23 September 2011), and in Jakarta ((13 - 17 October 2011 dan 21
- 25 November 2011).
Table 3
Composition and Number of Participants in Collaborative Activities with Third Parties
No.
Number of
Participants
(judges)
Institution
1.
International Labour Organization (ILO)
13
2.
Women’s Association for Justice Legal Aid
Institute (LBH APIK)
2
3.
RI Attorney General’s Office
26
4.
Bank Indonesia
180
5.
USAID-Chance for Justice (C4J)
27
6.
Directorate General of Taxes, Ministry of
Finance
49
7.
Community Advocacy and Study Institute
(ELSAM)
46
TOTAL
Notes
Tax Court judges
343
V. MANAGEMENT AND LEADERSHIP TRAINING
Various policies have been adopted by the Supreme Court in connection with the
need to improve the effectiveness of the Management and Leadership Education
and Training Center. Pre-appointment training for grades II and III, and Level III
and IV Leadership Training were no longer provided by third parties in 2011, but
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
111
rather by the Management and Leadership Education and training Center, under
the coordination of the Institute of State Administration. Training of trainers for
teaching staff was also provided.
As regards the master’s degree and doctorate scholarship program, the number
of participants increased by 26.27% in 2011.
1. Priority Programs
a. Accreditation of the Management and Leadership Education and
training Center
The Institute of State Administration, through its Letter Number
777/I/1/9/2010, dated 3 August 2010, officially declared the Management
and Leadership Education and training Center to be accredited and
suitable for providing pre-appointment education and training to grades
Ii and III, and Level III and IV training.
As the certification for pre-appointment training is valid for 3 years, and
the certification for leadership training is valid for 2 years, in 2011 the
Management and Leadership Education and training Center made
concerted efforts to maintain the certification that had been awarded.
b. Improving the capacity of management training teachers.
The Management and Leadership Education and training Center has
made various improvements in the management training field and
provided addition training to teaching staff so as to improve their
teaching capacity.
c. Master’s Degree and Doctorate Scholarship Program
The Management and Leadership Education and training Center, in
collaboration with a number of state and private universities, has been
running master’s degree and doctorate programs for officials and staff
of the Supreme Court and its subordinate courts. IN 2011, a total of 99
officials and staff members availed of the scholarship program, with the
details being as shown in the following table:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
112
Table 4
Master’s Degree and Doctorate Scholarship Program
Participants
Institute of Higher
Education
No
S.2
Semesters
III & IV
Semesters
I & II
Number
S.3
1.
Airlangga University
1
1
2.
Brawijaya University
1
1
3.
Padjajaran University
4
4
4.
Gadjah Mada University
3
3
5.
Jayabaya University
1
1
6.
Islam University Jakarta
7.
8.
9.
10.
23
28
51
15
17
32
1
1
Trisakti University
1
1
Islam University Bandung
2
2
4
49
12
99
Muhammadiyah
University Jakarta
Pancasila University
Jakarta
Total Participants
38
The distribution of master’s and doctoral degrees being taken by the
participants is as shown in the following table:
Table 5
Master’s and Doctoral Degree Programs
No.
Study Program
Number
Notes.
1.
Master of Legal Science
51
2.
Master of Management Science
33
3
Master of Accounting
1
4.
Master of Education Management
2
5.
Doctor of Laws
12
Total
99
2. Routine Programs
The provision of management and leadership training during the course of
2011 is as described in the following table:
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
113
Table 6
Management and Leadership Training, 2011
No.
Number of
Participants
Name of Training Course
1.
Training of Trainers (TOT) for teaching staff
20
2.
Pre-appointment training for grade II
635
3.
Pre-appointment training for grade III
1005
4.
Level IV Leadership Training
40
5.
Level III Leadership Training
40
6.
Training for court secretaries
25
7.
Court Leadership Training
25
8.
Goods and services certification training
40
9.
Training for treasurers
40
10.
Master’s degree programs
87
11.
Doctoral degree programs
12
Total participants
1969
VI.FUTURE CHALLENGES
Due to the geographic size of Indonesia and the limited funding available, no all
judicial and court staff are able to avail of training at the center. Consequently, it is
essential that an e-learning system be applied by the Law and Justice Research,
Development, Education and Training Center.
Training facilities, such as classroom, accommodation and other facilities, need
to be properly managed. In addition, the skills and competencies of trainers
need to be improved through such things as Management of Trainer courses
(MOT), training officer courses (TOC), and training of trainer courses (TOT). All
of these needs pose challenges in themselves to the Law and Justice Research,
Development, Education and Training Center .
The implementation of the Integrated PPC program commenced in 2011, and it
is expected that this will require the allocation of additional funding to education
and training.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 8
114
CHAPTER
9
SUPREME COURT PARTICIPATION IN
INTERNATIONAL FORUMS
Chapter IX
SUPREME COURT PARTICIPATION IN INTERNATIONAL
FORUMS
The Indonesian Supreme Court received increasing recognition on the
international stage during 2011, with a number of significant international events
being successfully hosted by the Supreme Court during the course of the
year. These included the Asia-Pacific Regional Conference of the International
Association for Court Administration in March 2011, and the ASEAN Chief
Justices Roundtable Conference on the Environment in December 2011, which
resulted in a declaration on law enforcement in the environmental arena in the
Asean region. In a major coup, the Asia-Pacific Law Association selected the RI
Supreme Court to host its conference in February 2012.
In addition to the above, the Supreme Court also signed a number of agreements/
memoranda of understanding during the course of the year. These include
agreements with the Federal and Family Court of Australia, and the Supreme
Court of Sudan. Such agreements are a manifestation of the Supreme Court
determination to learn from other countries so as to build a better system of
justice in Indonesia.
In the international sphere, the Supreme Court activities may be divided
into 3 categories, namely, conferences, visits/workshops, and the signing of
agreements. Overall, these activities included the following:
1. International Association for Court Administration (IACA);
2. 14th Conference of Chief Justice of Asia and the Pacific;
3. Roundtable Meeting ASEAN’s Chief Justice for Environment;
4. Visit by a delegation from the Government of Bangladesh to the Supreme
Court
5. Collaboration with Ibnu Saud University in Saudi Arabia;
6. National Case Management Workhop, Justice Sector Strategic Dialogue in
Dhaka;
7. Workshop in Morocco;
8. The 5th Training Course of the China – ASEAN Legal Training Base;
9. International Conference On Enforcing Contracts in South Korea;
10. Return visit to the Netherlands
11. Joint Study for Capacity - Development of Indonesian Judges, Tokyo, Japan;
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 9
116
12. Gender Mainstreaming Workshop (child protection, domestic violence and
trafficking), France;
13. Shariah Economics Workshop
14. Workshop on judicial supervision in China;
15. Legal and Judicial Thinkers Dialogue, Australia;
16. Collaboration between Indonesia and Australia (Family Court);
17. Working visit to the Studiecentrum Rechtspleging (SSR), Zutphen,
Netherlands;
18. Shariah Economics Workshop, Jordan;
19. Visit by RI Supreme Court to China:
20. MoU with Family and Federal Court of Australia
21. MoU with Supreme Court of Sudan.
Executive Summary Annual Report 2011
CHAPTER 9
117
Secretariat Working Group Development
2011 Annual Report of the Supreme Court