Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Marcell Sihombing, Hasyry Agustin
Supreme Court's Building. Photo: SGP
Indonesia’s Supreme Court (MA) recently issued Regulation No. 1 of 2016on Mediation Procedures in Courts (“2016 Regulation”). The 2016 Regulation incorporates three main provisions, namely the shortening of the mediation timeframe from 40 business days to 30 business days, the obligation for disputing parties to attend any mediation process in person (which includes the use of audio-visual links), and the mandatory good faith of any disputing parties.
However, the issuance of the 2016 Regulation has apparently gone unnoticed by many of the country’s lawyers and judges. For example, Jerry, a local lawyer, asserted that he was not even aware of the 2016 Regulation.
“I am not aware of the latest MA Regulation even being the issued. As regards the shortening of the mediation timeframe from 40 days to 30 days, well this is not essential information for me. If [any disputing parties] wish to make a peaceful settlement, then they are welcome to do so,” asserted Mr. Jerry to hukumonline from the South Jakarta District Court on Monday, 15 February 2016.
Moreover, according to Mr. Jerry, the 2016 Regulation has to date had little or no effect on the disputes being brought before the courts, as it is common knowledge that bringing a case before a court means that an amicable settlement is no longer an option.
“Usually, when a case is brought before a court, the disputing parties are seeking definite legal redress. Successful mediation rarely happens during this stage. Moreover, attempts at mediation usually fail, although amicable settlements are often eventually made during the presentation of a plaintiff’s reply or a defendant’s rejoinder. So it [the new regulation] is neither essential nor contributing much,” asserted Mr. Jerry.
Tumpak Tampubolon, another local lawyer, finds himself in a similar situation to that of Mr. Jerry. Despite being aware of the underlying concept behind the 2016 Regulation, Mr. Tampubolon is only vaguely aware of the 2016 Regulation being issued at all. However, much like Mr. Jerry, he also believes mediation to rarely be successful and that the process is largely a formality. Mr. Tampubolon thus sought to emphasize that the mediation process should be revised, both in its regulatory framework and its technical aspects.
“There needs to be an authoritative power able to reform the mediation process. After all, a judge has little or no part to play during any mediation process, which usually only sees disputing parties engaging in endless and ultimately fruitless debate. Many judges don’t even attempt to understand the nature of the dispute in question. It’s just a formality in other words, and judges by and large only understand a given dispute in a very general sense. The mediation process is rather useless therefore and it would be better if it were abolished altogether. Successful mediation outcomes are extremely rare, indeed only some 0.5% are ever successful,” asserted Mr. Tampubolon.
Petrus Balla Pattoyana, a lawyer and also a professional mediator, offered a different view from his two colleagues, however, and asserted that he was already aware that the 2016 Regulation had been issued. Mr. Pattoyana further explained that the issuance of the 2016 Regulation had both its pros and cons.
“The main difference is the timeframe being shortened from 40 days to 30 days, which has its merits and demerits. Based on my practical experience, timeframes mean little, however, if any disputing parties have basically made up their minds to abandon the mediation process. In my opinion then, the 30-day timeframe is still too long [for a mediation process],” asserted Mr. Pattoyana.
Mr. Pattoyana also highlighted the fact that lawyers have mandatory special powers of attorney which allow them to initiate, take part in, or completely abandon any mediation process. “If their principal or client doesn’t want to participate in a given mediation process, then they can draw up a power of attorney documents declaring their intention to abandon mediation altogether. It [this special power of attorney] can also be used in order to initiate a mediation process, although if any of the disputing parties do not want to engage in such a process, then this is also allowed,” asserted Mr. Pattoyana.
Lawyers are not the only professionals who appear to be generally unaware of the issuance of the 2016 Regulation. Judge Made Sutrisna from the South Jakarta District Court, for example, also recently admitted that he is currently waiting for an official dissemination of information from the MA.
“I am currently in possession of no material pertaining to this matter, and I have only read about it on the Internet. However, we are planning to attend an information-dissemination session, which is to be held this coming Friday. The 2016 Regulation was supposedly effective from its date of issue, however we will wait for an official dissemination of information relating to this matter. Moreover I still have to undertake a thorough reading of the regulation itself,” Judge Sutrisna concluded.
However, the issuance of the 2016 Regulation has apparently gone unnoticed by many of the country’s lawyers and judges. For example, Jerry, a local lawyer, asserted that he was not even aware of the 2016 Regulation.
“I am not aware of the latest MA Regulation even being the issued. As regards the shortening of the mediation timeframe from 40 days to 30 days, well this is not essential information for me. If [any disputing parties] wish to make a peaceful settlement, then they are welcome to do so,” asserted Mr. Jerry to hukumonline from the South Jakarta District Court on Monday, 15 February 2016.
Moreover, according to Mr. Jerry, the 2016 Regulation has to date had little or no effect on the disputes being brought before the courts, as it is common knowledge that bringing a case before a court means that an amicable settlement is no longer an option.
“Usually, when a case is brought before a court, the disputing parties are seeking definite legal redress. Successful mediation rarely happens during this stage. Moreover, attempts at mediation usually fail, although amicable settlements are often eventually made during the presentation of a plaintiff’s reply or a defendant’s rejoinder. So it [the new regulation] is neither essential nor contributing much,” asserted Mr. Jerry.
Tumpak Tampubolon, another local lawyer, finds himself in a similar situation to that of Mr. Jerry. Despite being aware of the underlying concept behind the 2016 Regulation, Mr. Tampubolon is only vaguely aware of the 2016 Regulation being issued at all. However, much like Mr. Jerry, he also believes mediation to rarely be successful and that the process is largely a formality. Mr. Tampubolon thus sought to emphasize that the mediation process should be revised, both in its regulatory framework and its technical aspects.
“There needs to be an authoritative power able to reform the mediation process. After all, a judge has little or no part to play during any mediation process, which usually only sees disputing parties engaging in endless and ultimately fruitless debate. Many judges don’t even attempt to understand the nature of the dispute in question. It’s just a formality in other words, and judges by and large only understand a given dispute in a very general sense. The mediation process is rather useless therefore and it would be better if it were abolished altogether. Successful mediation outcomes are extremely rare, indeed only some 0.5% are ever successful,” asserted Mr. Tampubolon.
Petrus Balla Pattoyana, a lawyer and also a professional mediator, offered a different view from his two colleagues, however, and asserted that he was already aware that the 2016 Regulation had been issued. Mr. Pattoyana further explained that the issuance of the 2016 Regulation had both its pros and cons.
“The main difference is the timeframe being shortened from 40 days to 30 days, which has its merits and demerits. Based on my practical experience, timeframes mean little, however, if any disputing parties have basically made up their minds to abandon the mediation process. In my opinion then, the 30-day timeframe is still too long [for a mediation process],” asserted Mr. Pattoyana.
Mr. Pattoyana also highlighted the fact that lawyers have mandatory special powers of attorney which allow them to initiate, take part in, or completely abandon any mediation process. “If their principal or client doesn’t want to participate in a given mediation process, then they can draw up a power of attorney documents declaring their intention to abandon mediation altogether. It [this special power of attorney] can also be used in order to initiate a mediation process, although if any of the disputing parties do not want to engage in such a process, then this is also allowed,” asserted Mr. Pattoyana.
Lawyers are not the only professionals who appear to be generally unaware of the issuance of the 2016 Regulation. Judge Made Sutrisna from the South Jakarta District Court, for example, also recently admitted that he is currently waiting for an official dissemination of information from the MA.
“I am currently in possession of no material pertaining to this matter, and I have only read about it on the Internet. However, we are planning to attend an information-dissemination session, which is to be held this coming Friday. The 2016 Regulation was supposedly effective from its date of issue, however we will wait for an official dissemination of information relating to this matter. Moreover I still have to undertake a thorough reading of the regulation itself,” Judge Sutrisna concluded.
(rfs/sp)
Marcell Sihombing, Hasyry Agustin
Supreme Court's Building. Photo: SGP
Indonesia’s Supreme Court (MA) recently issued Regulation No. 1 of 2016on Mediation Procedures in Courts (“2016 Regulation”). The 2016 Regulation incorporates three main provisions, namely the shortening of the mediation timeframe from 40 business days to 30 business days, the obligation for disputing parties to attend any mediation process in person (which includes the use of audio-visual links), and the mandatory good faith of any disputing parties.
However, the issuance of the 2016 Regulation has apparently gone unnoticed by many of the country’s lawyers and judges. For example, Jerry, a local lawyer, asserted that he was not even aware of the 2016 Regulation.
“I am not aware of the latest MA Regulation even being the issued. As regards the shortening of the mediation timeframe from 40 days to 30 days, well this is not essential information for me. If [any disputing parties] wish to make a peaceful settlement, then they are welcome to do so,” asserted Mr. Jerry to hukumonline from the South Jakarta District Court on Monday, 15 February 2016.
Moreover, according to Mr. Jerry, the 2016 Regulation has to date had little or no effect on the disputes being brought before the courts, as it is common knowledge that bringing a case before a court means that an amicable settlement is no longer an option.
“Usually, when a case is brought before a court, the disputing parties are seeking definite legal redress. Successful mediation rarely happens during this stage. Moreover, attempts at mediation usually fail, although amicable settlements are often eventually made during the presentation of a plaintiff’s reply or a defendant’s rejoinder. So it [the new regulation] is neither essential nor contributing much,” asserted Mr. Jerry.
Tumpak Tampubolon, another local lawyer, finds himself in a similar situation to that of Mr. Jerry. Despite being aware of the underlying concept behind the 2016 Regulation, Mr. Tampubolon is only vaguely aware of the 2016 Regulation being issued at all. However, much like Mr. Jerry, he also believes mediation to rarely be successful and that the process is largely a formality. Mr. Tampubolon thus sought to emphasize that the mediation process should be revised, both in its regulatory framework and its technical aspects.
“There needs to be an authoritative power able to reform the mediation process. After all, a judge has little or no part to play during any mediation process, which usually only sees disputing parties engaging in endless and ultimately fruitless debate. Many judges don’t even attempt to understand the nature of the dispute in question. It’s just a formality in other words, and judges by and large only understand a given dispute in a very general sense. The mediation process is rather useless therefore and it would be better if it were abolished altogether. Successful mediation outcomes are extremely rare, indeed only some 0.5% are ever successful,” asserted Mr. Tampubolon.
Petrus Balla Pattoyana, a lawyer and also a professional mediator, offered a different view from his two colleagues, however, and asserted that he was already aware that the 2016 Regulation had been issued. Mr. Pattoyana further explained that the issuance of the 2016 Regulation had both its pros and cons.
“The main difference is the timeframe being shortened from 40 days to 30 days, which has its merits and demerits. Based on my practical experience, timeframes mean little, however, if any disputing parties have basically made up their minds to abandon the mediation process. In my opinion then, the 30-day timeframe is still too long [for a mediation process],” asserted Mr. Pattoyana.
Mr. Pattoyana also highlighted the fact that lawyers have mandatory special powers of attorney which allow them to initiate, take part in, or completely abandon any mediation process. “If their principal or client doesn’t want to participate in a given mediation process, then they can draw up a power of attorney documents declaring their intention to abandon mediation altogether. It [this special power of attorney] can also be used in order to initiate a mediation process, although if any of the disputing parties do not want to engage in such a process, then this is also allowed,” asserted Mr. Pattoyana.
Lawyers are not the only professionals who appear to be generally unaware of the issuance of the 2016 Regulation. Judge Made Sutrisna from the South Jakarta District Court, for example, also recently admitted that he is currently waiting for an official dissemination of information from the MA.
“I am currently in possession of no material pertaining to this matter, and I have only read about it on the Internet. However, we are planning to attend an information-dissemination session, which is to be held this coming Friday. The 2016 Regulation was supposedly effective from its date of issue, however we will wait for an official dissemination of information relating to this matter. Moreover I still have to undertake a thorough reading of the regulation itself,” Judge Sutrisna concluded.
However, the issuance of the 2016 Regulation has apparently gone unnoticed by many of the country’s lawyers and judges. For example, Jerry, a local lawyer, asserted that he was not even aware of the 2016 Regulation.
“I am not aware of the latest MA Regulation even being the issued. As regards the shortening of the mediation timeframe from 40 days to 30 days, well this is not essential information for me. If [any disputing parties] wish to make a peaceful settlement, then they are welcome to do so,” asserted Mr. Jerry to hukumonline from the South Jakarta District Court on Monday, 15 February 2016.
Moreover, according to Mr. Jerry, the 2016 Regulation has to date had little or no effect on the disputes being brought before the courts, as it is common knowledge that bringing a case before a court means that an amicable settlement is no longer an option.
“Usually, when a case is brought before a court, the disputing parties are seeking definite legal redress. Successful mediation rarely happens during this stage. Moreover, attempts at mediation usually fail, although amicable settlements are often eventually made during the presentation of a plaintiff’s reply or a defendant’s rejoinder. So it [the new regulation] is neither essential nor contributing much,” asserted Mr. Jerry.
Tumpak Tampubolon, another local lawyer, finds himself in a similar situation to that of Mr. Jerry. Despite being aware of the underlying concept behind the 2016 Regulation, Mr. Tampubolon is only vaguely aware of the 2016 Regulation being issued at all. However, much like Mr. Jerry, he also believes mediation to rarely be successful and that the process is largely a formality. Mr. Tampubolon thus sought to emphasize that the mediation process should be revised, both in its regulatory framework and its technical aspects.
“There needs to be an authoritative power able to reform the mediation process. After all, a judge has little or no part to play during any mediation process, which usually only sees disputing parties engaging in endless and ultimately fruitless debate. Many judges don’t even attempt to understand the nature of the dispute in question. It’s just a formality in other words, and judges by and large only understand a given dispute in a very general sense. The mediation process is rather useless therefore and it would be better if it were abolished altogether. Successful mediation outcomes are extremely rare, indeed only some 0.5% are ever successful,” asserted Mr. Tampubolon.
Petrus Balla Pattoyana, a lawyer and also a professional mediator, offered a different view from his two colleagues, however, and asserted that he was already aware that the 2016 Regulation had been issued. Mr. Pattoyana further explained that the issuance of the 2016 Regulation had both its pros and cons.
“The main difference is the timeframe being shortened from 40 days to 30 days, which has its merits and demerits. Based on my practical experience, timeframes mean little, however, if any disputing parties have basically made up their minds to abandon the mediation process. In my opinion then, the 30-day timeframe is still too long [for a mediation process],” asserted Mr. Pattoyana.
Mr. Pattoyana also highlighted the fact that lawyers have mandatory special powers of attorney which allow them to initiate, take part in, or completely abandon any mediation process. “If their principal or client doesn’t want to participate in a given mediation process, then they can draw up a power of attorney documents declaring their intention to abandon mediation altogether. It [this special power of attorney] can also be used in order to initiate a mediation process, although if any of the disputing parties do not want to engage in such a process, then this is also allowed,” asserted Mr. Pattoyana.
Lawyers are not the only professionals who appear to be generally unaware of the issuance of the 2016 Regulation. Judge Made Sutrisna from the South Jakarta District Court, for example, also recently admitted that he is currently waiting for an official dissemination of information from the MA.
“I am currently in possession of no material pertaining to this matter, and I have only read about it on the Internet. However, we are planning to attend an information-dissemination session, which is to be held this coming Friday. The 2016 Regulation was supposedly effective from its date of issue, however we will wait for an official dissemination of information relating to this matter. Moreover I still have to undertake a thorough reading of the regulation itself,” Judge Sutrisna concluded.
(rfs/sp)