The government had encouraged the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) in its final sessions of the previous term to be pro-active and expedite the passage of several bills. The DPR complied. One of the bills to successfully negotiate the DPR in the final days of the previous parliament was the Bill on Judicial Powers (kekuasaan kehakiman). The new law, No. 48 of 2009, repeals and replaces the previous law on this subject matter, namely: Law No. 4 of 2004.
The overriding rationale for the passage of the law was that the previous law was no longer fit for purpose, particularly with respect to the administration of justice throughout the Republic of Indonesia.
The law states that every individual that is involved in a case before the courts is entitled to legal aid. Yet, it must be noted that legal aid is to be provided to those who are unable to afford representation.
Supervision in the law is clearly set out to be both internal and external. Internally, the Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that judges are operating within the parameters of an agreed code of ethics and an agreed code of conduct. Importantly, the law is clear that this supervision cannot be onerous to the point that it interferes with a judge’s ability to undertake their duties and functions in an independent and impartial manner. Externally, this supervision is to be conducted by the Judicial Commission.
Furthermore, the law envisages that the Judicial Commission will have the authority to analyze judicial decisions that are final and binding as a basis for making recommendations for rotations of the judiciary.
The appointment and dismissal of judges, including ad hoc judges, is set out in Chapter IV.
Interestingly, the Law includes an article on alternative dispute resolution. The Supreme Court has been encouraging, in fact demanding parties, explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for civil matters prior to undertaking a court hearing. The premise is simple; if more cases can be resolved before going to court then the court will have more time and a smaller case backlog in the future.
The law makes mention of arbitration, consultation, negotiation, mediation, and conciliation among others. It must be noted that an arbitration decision is considered final and binding. Where a part does not execute the arbitration decision voluntarily, then it is within the judiciary’s powers to issue an order of execution.
Nevertheless, the law envisages that the provisions relating to alternative dispute resolution will be regulated in law.
The government had encouraged the House of Representatives (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat / DPR) in its final sessions of the previous term to be pro-active and expedite the passage of several bills. The DPR complied. One of the bills to successfully negotiate the DPR in the final days of the previous parliament was the Bill on Judicial Powers (kekuasaan kehakiman). The new law, No. 48 of 2009, repeals and replaces the previous law on this subject matter, namely: Law No. 4 of 2004.
The overriding rationale for the passage of the law was that the previous law was no longer fit for purpose, particularly with respect to the administration of justice throughout the Republic of Indonesia.
The law states that every individual that is involved in a case before the courts is entitled to legal aid. Yet, it must be noted that legal aid is to be provided to those who are unable to afford representation.
Supervision in the law is clearly set out to be both internal and external. Internally, the Supreme Court is responsible for ensuring that judges are operating within the parameters of an agreed code of ethics and an agreed code of conduct. Importantly, the law is clear that this supervision cannot be onerous to the point that it interferes with a judge’s ability to undertake their duties and functions in an independent and impartial manner. Externally, this supervision is to be conducted by the Judicial Commission.
Furthermore, the law envisages that the Judicial Commission will have the authority to analyze judicial decisions that are final and binding as a basis for making recommendations for rotations of the judiciary.
The appointment and dismissal of judges, including ad hoc judges, is set out in Chapter IV.
Interestingly, the Law includes an article on alternative dispute resolution. The Supreme Court has been encouraging, in fact demanding parties, explore alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for civil matters prior to undertaking a court hearing. The premise is simple; if more cases can be resolved before going to court then the court will have more time and a smaller case backlog in the future.
The law makes mention of arbitration, consultation, negotiation, mediation, and conciliation among others. It must be noted that an arbitration decision is considered final and binding. Where a part does not execute the arbitration decision voluntarily, then it is within the judiciary’s powers to issue an order of execution.
Nevertheless, the law envisages that the provisions relating to alternative dispute resolution will be regulated in law.
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Professional Solutions
University Solutions
Pro
My Workspace
Pro AI
Terfavorit
Allex QnA
Pro Compliance
