Cooperation between The Indonesian Supreme Court with Australia ( The Speech of Chief Justice of the Indonesian Supreme Court in Melbourn, 21 July 2008)

The Honourable Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia,

The Honourable Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia,

The Honourable Judges of the Federal and Family Court of Australia,

Respected Representatives from AusAid, Indonesia-Australia Legal Development Facilities (IALDF) as well as members of the delegation and all distinguished guests.

 

I extend a good afternoon and I would like to pray and be thankful to Almighty God for upon His blessings, we are able to meet here in good health at this delightful event.

  First  of  all,  I  would  like  to  convey  my  sincere  appreciation  to  The  Federal  Court  of Australia  that  has  invited  us  from  the  Indonesian  Supreme  Court  together  with  other delegation members here to discuss the ongoing  Indonesian judicial reform which has been undertaken for quite some time. This discussion is very important to measure the level of success of what we have done and future challenges.

Chief Justice Black, Chief Justice Bryant, Justices  dan distinguished guests,

It  feels  like  just  yesterday  that  the  cooperation  program  between  the  Indonesian Supreme Court and the Federal Court as well as the Family Court was being developed. This  unique  “court  to  court”  cooperation  has  already  been  underway  for  around  10 years. The Supreme Court of Indonesia, along with both the Federal and Family Court of Australia possess a number of similarities in facing the challenges and obstacles when seeking  to  provide  the  best  judicial  service  to  the  public.  As  I  have  always  said,  the Indonesian  Judiciary  from  a  development  perspective  and  reforming  itself  needs  the experience from Australian judiciary to accelerate the judicial reform in Indonesia. Our 10  years  of  experience  in  working  together  has  proved  that  although  there  were differences, it has not diminished the number similarities that exist which have in turn allowed  us,  in  an  accelerated  manner,  apply  and  implement  fruits  of  these  lessons within our judiciary.

Chief Justice Black, Chief Justice Bryant, Justices  and distinguished guests,

Allow   me   to   provide   an   illustration   of   the   various   cooperation   which   has   been implemented  as  well  as  those  which  are  still  in  the  process  of  being  implemented between our two countries:

1.   The Environmental Law Education Program, an IASTP Project, which has successfully educated   1300   judges,   prosecutors,   police,   public   service   investigators   and environmental NGOs. The program will be continuing in IASTP Project phase II in the middle  of  this  year.  I  humbly  admit  that  our  effort  to  protect  the  environment through  law  enforcement  has  not  been  successful  enough.

      The  damage  to  the environment caused by humans is always unpleasant and saddening news. There are also  judges  which  are  not  entirely  aware  of  the  importance  of  the  environment. Nevertheless, we will not relent. One of the efforts is to continuously educate and train all judges so they could really get a strong grip upon this matter both in terms of  legal  enforcement  as  well  as  non-legal  matters.  In  my  opinion,  education  and training  on  environmental  law  is  very  crucial  since  it  is  not  just  merely  a  local problem but a global one, it not just a nation’s problem, but every nation’s problem and it is not just the environment but also a problem of humanity.

2.   The Program on the Drafting of the Supreme Courts’ Internal Regulations in order to fill  in  the  gap  in  the  procedural  law  regarding  Class  Action.  Within  this  program, several  Judges  from  the  Federal  Court  of  Australia  were  sent  to  Indonesia  and several  of  Indonesian  Supreme  Court  officials  have  also  been  sent  to  Australia  in order to exchange knowledge on “Class Action”. With support from AusAid and The Asia Foundation, in 2002 The Supreme Court Regulation No.2/2002 regarding Group Representatives Lawsuit was amalgamated and was widely accepted by the public.

 3.   The Training of Human Rights and Intellectual Property Rights. In order to upgrade judges’  understanding  about  human  rights  and  Intellectual  Property  Rights,  the Federal  Court  of  Australia  through  Australian  Legal  Resources  International  (ALRI) and other Indonesian-Australian Institutions on Legal Reform has conducted several training  programs  in  Australia  for  Human  Rights  Court  Judges  and  Trade  Court Judges.

 4.   Mediation Training Program has been held in several cities in Indonesia (Semarang, Bandung, Surabaya, and others); several Chief Judges have been sent to Australia to do  conduct  research  on  Court  Annexed  Mediation.  The  Supreme  Court  has  been working  together  with  its  Australian  counterparts  in  drafting  the  already  finished Supreme Court regulation regarding Consumer Protection.

 Programs mentioned above were only but a small sample of cooperation between the Indonesian Supreme Court with Australia. The result of such cooperation was not just merely  technical  but  also  giving  a  broader  view  for  the  judges  and  heads  of  judicial institutions in Indonesia. One of the most important perspectives is the reformation of the judicial system, which is a must. Reformation in nature is unavoidable. If we do not want to change, then there will be something that will change us. If we do not want to be changed then we will be changed by others. It is just simple of whether to become the subject of reformation or the object of reformation. We have chosen to become the subject  of  reformation  not  the  Object.  That  is  why  we  have  to  learn  more  form  our friends, such as the Australian judiciary.

 Chief Justice Black, Chief Justice Bryant, Justices  and distinguished guests,

The  blueprints  of  Judicial  Reform,  drafted  by  The  Supreme  Court  in  2003,  mapped various problems and basic recommendations for judicial reform. In order to focus on the  Supreme  Court  Reform,  there  were  five  programs  deemed  to  be  a  priority,  they were:  (1)  Accelerating  the  “One  Roof”  process  and  strengthening  judges’  quality  and integrity. (2)Reinstating public trust towards the Indonesian judiciary, (3) Publication of court  verdicts  and  revitalising  the  Court  Information  System,  (4)  Reducing  the  case backlog  through  an  improved  case  management  system;  and  (5)  Improving  the  court budget   and   judges’   welfare.   Subsequently,   there   were   taskforces   which   were established to specifically handle each of those five priorities.

 Based on the recommendations in the blueprint and the priority programs, the cooperation between  the  Supreme  Court  and  the  Federal Court  of  Australia  has been developed in the MoU and (annex MoU) which is reviewed annually. Several programs have been conducted to assist the Supreme Court to establish a foundation of change, such as:

 1.   The program on developing case management in The Supreme Court including the program  to  reduce  case  backlog  and  case  auditing.  Physical  auditing  of  cases  has been  completed  and  several  recommendations  have  been  made  in  relation  to outputs, such as  : 

Electronic  data  and  information  management  for  the  junior registrar,  monthly  register  closing  and  collection  of  electronic  softcopies,  drafting the  channels  on  handling  the  verdict  softcopies,  The  drafting  of  the  guide  to handling judgment softcopies, electronic database training to 37 registrar staff, and the  socialization of the guide to the registrar staff  and  chief  judges. The  results of these  activities  can  be  seen  through  the  improvement  of  the  quality  of  the  case condition  report  within  the  2007  Supreme  Court  Annual  Report  and  the  growing number   of   Supreme   Court’s   judgments   which   have   been   uploaded   to   the www.putusan.net website.

2.   Transparency Program, besides Information and Technology Development, there has been a decree of the Head of The Indonesian Supreme Court No.144/2007 regarding Information Transparency in the court along with the publication of books regarding the decree and the distribution to 8000 judges and court staff.

 In   addition   to   such   efforts,   in   order   to   improve   the   IT   support   to   facilitate accountable   and   transparent   court   management,   several   intensive   discussions between Supreme Court officials and related courts with expertise from the Family Court  of  Australia  were  held.  Other  efforts  were  also  undertaken  such  as  the cooperation of a judgment database which consists of Judgments of High Courts for Religious  Matters  being  made  available  on  www.asianlii.org or  www.badilag.net websites. Around 840 judgments have been anonymised and this process is still on-going.  In  the  near  future,  it  is  expected  that  there  will  be  a  signing  of  an  MoU between  The  Indonesian  Supreme  Court  and  AsianLii that  will allow publication  of the Supreme Court’s judgments on the AsianLii Website.

 3.   Assistance from Federal Court of Australia which also included the commencement

of financial management reform which provided support through provision of a local expert   with   specialising   in   the   field   of   budgeting   and   finance.   Through   such assistance  from  the  expert,  it  is  expected  that  The  Supreme  Court  and  its  lower courts’ financial management could be more effective, efficient, and accountable. A comparative  study of  the Federal  Court  of  Australia  has  been  undertaken  by financial officers of the Supreme Court and appellate level court to understand more about  transparency  within  court  financial  management.  A  workshop  about  the standard  for  a  court’s  special  costs,  with  officials  from  the  Supreme  Court  and  its lower  courts,  and  several  discussions  between  the  Federal  Court  and  Indonesian Supreme Court concerning transparency and accountability of financial management also undertaken.

 4.   Management  and  Leadership  Reform  Program.   The  Federal  Court  of  Australia conducted training for 24 members of Indonesian Supreme Court Team for Judicial Reform  and  Religious  Matters  Court  Administrators  for  two  weeks  on  Leadership and  Management  reform  which  was  held  in  Sydney.  In  addition  to  that,  The Research and Development Body, Educational and Training Division of The Supreme Court  already  has  a  pool  of  trainers  which  together  with  other  trainers  have conducted training sessions on   Management reform and Leadership in 5 provinces targeting registrars from all over Indonesia and will be continued to other areas of Indonesia.

 5.   Developing Cooperation between the Family Court and Religious Court such as :

 (a)           Comparative studies for judges and court officials to the Family Court of Australia  to  comprehend  their  understanding  toward  court  client  services  thus enabling  the  Religious  Courts  to  provide  an  accountable  service  and  gaining input from public. At the moment, the Religious Courts has in the vicinity of 42 websites which were expected to developing alongside the provision of accurate and up to date data. Recent indications show users and the public have stated an increased level of satisfaction as there is access to  recent court information, in particular case status information.

 

(b)           Survey on  Access and  justice  in  the  Religious  Courts where  the  results will be the  foundation  on  increasing the budget  for  pro-bono  process  for  the poor  on DIPA  2008.  This  Survey  will  also  be  socialized  to  various  levels  of  society, whether  they  are  judges  and  court  officials,  academics,  legal  practitioner,  and NGOs.

 Chief Justice Black, Chief Justice Bryant, Justices  and Distinguished Guests,

The matters which have I mentioned above show the extent that this cooperation has been progressing extremely  well and effectively. Allow me to convey my gratitude for the cooperation that has existed between us. If there is no change to the regulation, on November 1, this year I will enter my retirement age, so this might be the last meeting before I retire. I hope that this successful cooperation is able to continue in the future. Our world in the future will be a unified world, therefore mutual cooperation should be something that should exist and well maintained.

 

Melbourne, 21 July 2008

 

 

Bagir Manan