Legal Community
Indonesian Bar Association (PERADI) Enacts New Regulation for Foreign Advocates in Indonesia
Peradi (Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia / the Indonesian Bar Association) as one of Indonesia’s most prominent bar associations has just passed a new regulation for the practices of foreign lawyers in Indonesia. The Peradi Chairman Decree No. KEP.2010/PERADI/DPN.XII/2013 on Requirements and Procedural Recommendations for Foreign Lawyers Working in Indonesia outlines key requirements of foreigners who wish to practice law in Indonesia. The terms and requirements include the obligation to pass an ethics test as part of the recommendation from Peradi, the pro bono obligation for foreign lawyers towards the improvement of Indonesian law development in legal research and legal education, and other procedural technicalities.
The ethics test is a new procedure positioned by Peradi to give recommendations for foreign lawyers. Previously, foreigners who wish to obtain the Peradi law practice recommendation are only required to submit credentials documents. The test itself is in line with PSHK’s recommendation based on a research conducted in 2012 related to regulations for foreign lawyers in Indonesia. The test is part of a system in order to guarantee Indonesia’s legal consumers in receiving high-quality legal services provided by foreign lawyers. Additionally, it also serves as part of a control mechanism to protect competitiveness in the Indonesia legal sector, especially in the wake of the 2015 ASEAN Economic Community.
Constitutional Court
Constitutional Court Judge Selections at the House of Representatives Post-Constitutional Court Decision towards Law No. 4 Year 2012
The Constitutional Court has regulated Law No. 4 Year 2014 on the Second Amendment of Law No. 24 Year 2003 on the Constitutional Court, which conflicts with the constitution and does not possess a binding strength. As a follow-up towards this decision, according to us, several constructive ideas should be encouraged to enforce the Constitutional Court’s authority as the guardian of Constitution.
At first, the Law was actually Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 Year 2013 (Peraturan Pemerintah Pengganti Undang-Undang / Perpu Nomor 1 Tahun 2013) which was issued by the President as a response towards the arrest of Akil Mochtar, the Chairman of the Constitutional Court at the time. We argue that this legal product does not fulfill its constitutional requirement, which is the enforced particular of urgency. This issue also regards its contained material, such as the establishment of the Honorable Panel of Constitutional Judges, the existence of an expert panel as a Constitutional Court Judge candidate selection committee, up to the grace period requirements of a Constitutional Court Judge candidate from political parties. These three issues are used as the petitioner’s main arguments and have been granted by the Constitutional Court.
In our opinion, it is best that materials concerning justices monitoring and monitoring should be regulated by law, not by Government Regulations in Lieu of Laws. It isn’t only simply related to the categorization of legal products, but such materials should went through discussion process like regular bill does; unlike the Government Regulation in Lieu of Laws which are single-handedly issued by the President. Through regular process, there are viewpoints and interests that could be formulated together. In the future, the President and House of Representatives should propose amendments on the Law on the Constitutional Court with a revision agenda focusing on the supervision towards the Constitutional Court. The need for Constitutional Court supervision should be in the form of a permanent Honorary Council. The Judicial Commission involvement still remains a serious concern, considering the Constitutional Court once issued Decision No. 005/PUU-IV/2006, stating that the Judicial Commission has no authority to supervise the Constitutional Court. Any concern of whether the Constitutional Court would comply to the demand of supervison was actually answered by them through the Constitutional Court Internal Regulation No.2/2013 about Honorary Council. The composition of the Council itself could be discussed and decided later on, yet the essence is that supervision towards the Constitutional Court is a necessity. (MSG)
Supreme Court
Steps towards an E-Supreme Court
Starting 1 March 2014, the court will enact a new system; an electronic document delivery to complete Appeals and Judicial Reviews process. The system has actually been enacted since 2010, but was only limited to the delivery of verdict and indictment documents. Now, through Supreme Court Circular No. 1 Year 2014, electronically sent documents have been added to as much as 7 to 8 kinds for civil and criminal cases. In addition, the media used for delivering these electronic documents which were once varied using CDs/flash discs, e-mails, or the Supreme Court Data Communication Application, has now been reduced to only use the Supreme Court Data Communication Application regularly used in Indonesian courts.
The mechanism is enacted based on Decree No. 119 SK KMA/SK/VII/2013 dated July 19 2013 on the Establishment of the Day of Deliberation and Dictum of the Indonesian Supreme Court, where it alters the file examination system rotated between judges to simultaneous file readings. Therefore, the amount of documents needed has to be in accordance to the same amount of judges; aided by the practical use of the electronic mechanism. By attempting to optimize the utilization of information technology, the Court is expected to perform in a more fast and precise manner in order to aid those seeking justice. (SMR)
House of Representatives
Initial Progress of the MD3 Bill and the Public’s Response
On 24 October 2013, the House of Representatives formally proposed the Bill on the Amendment of Law No. 27 Year 2009 on the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, House of Regional Representatives and Regional House of Representatives (Law on the MPR, DPR, DPD and DPRD / MD3 Law). During its two-year discussion, the existence of the MD3 law itself substitutes Law No. 22 Year 2003 on the Structure and Status of the People’s Consultative Assembly, House of Representatives, House of Regional Representatives and Regional House of Representatives (more commonly known as the Susduk Law). The following development was on 28 January 2014 where a Special Committee was established as a work unit to discuss the Bill on Amendments towards the MD3 Law, consisting of 30 people of the House from various political parties. Then on 11 February 2014, the chairman of this Special Committee was appointed; Benny K Harman from the Democratic Party.
The initiative of improving the MD3 Law has to be positioned more significantly as an entry point and a priority in order to reorganize the House of Representatives’ performance. Moreover, it should be an effort towards actualizing a parliamentary institution that is accountable and representative. However, the substance of the Bill does not confirm this plea. In general, there are two identified issues. First, there is a measure in expanding and strengthening authorities, both individually and institutionally, on the pretext of elevating institutional performance. Second, at the same time, the scale and portion of transparency and accountability has declined, even becoming minus.
Based on findings towards the Bill on the Amendment of the MD3 Law, and also by reflecting on the previous discussion process, the Civil Society Coalition for the Amendment of the MD3 Law has recommended that the House and Government consider and prioritize several main issues, such as arrangements of performance standards of parliament members, more strict political party establishment requirements, open parliament meetings, strengthening of the Honorary Board, alterations in the relations between the House of Representatives and House of Regional Representatives, plus improving the recall mechanism. (RR)