The Supreme Court Blueprints SUMMARY
Pre-CGI session on the Justice Sector Jakarta, 10 December 2003
Introduction On 9 October 2003 the Indonesian Supreme Court announced a comprehensive reform plan for the structure and management of the judiciary in Indonesia. It includes a proposal on the structure, place and role of the new Judicial Commission envisaged under the Constitution. This reform plan is cast in five reports that are collectively referred to as the Supreme Court Blueprints. The Blueprints are divided as follows: (i) The Supreme Court, (ii) Personnel Management, (iii) Financial Management, (iv) Permanent Education of Judges and (v) The Judicial Commission. This note gives a very brief summary of the reports. The Supreme Court Blueprints are noteworthy for a number of reasons. They reflect an awareness within the Indonesian judiciary that there is a need for major reform, and it proposes ways by which current problems are to be addressed. The Blueprints involve a fundamental re-thinking of the existing institutional set-up. In drawing up its plans and proposals the Supreme Court has engaged private sector experts to assist in the process. All these elements are innovative and unprecedented. Never before has the Indonesian Supreme Court engaged in a comparable exercise. The Blueprints are also important because they constitute a framework for targeted and coordinated assistance by the Government of Indonesia as well as Donors. In the past, the absence of an institutional policy framework generated lack of clarit y on what the problems were and how these were to be addressed. The result was ad hoc policy making as well as funding support, which undermined the effectiveness of the envisaged institutional reforms. This conditions helps explain why more than twenty years of donor assistance to the judiciary has left little imprint so far. The Blueprints are the result of approximately 18 months fact-finding, soundings in the judiciary as well as extensive research, both national and comparative. Extensive hearings of judges were conducted, as well as meetings with related state agencies (such as the State Audit Board for Financial Management). Countries visited for comparative purposes included the Australia, India, Japan, the Netherlands, and the Philippines. The resulting reports are cast in a uniform format that consists of two sections. The first and the largest text section sets out the elements that needs to be reformed. In each element the existing condition or problems are identified, options are given on how these
can be addressed, and generally one of the options is proposed for moving forward. The second section translates the text section into an action matrix proposing specific followup steps (legislative changes, regulatory intervention, management committees, followup studies etc.) and a time schedule that also implies a priority list. 1. The Supreme Court Blueprint The Supreme Court blueprint covers seven issues: (i) constitutional independence; (ii) functions; (iii) organization; (iv) human resources; (v) case management; (vi) budget and facilities; and (vii) transparency, accountability, and information system. In each of these areas, a set of problems is identified, as well as ways to resolve them. For example, on case management: corruption, inefficiency, low productivity, and inconsistency in the court decisions are identified as the main problems. On ways to resolve them: overhauling the case registration system, changing the way cases are distributed and classified; and introducing a chamber system are suggested as the solution. 2. The Personnel Management Blueprint The principal issues covered by this Blueprint are (i) the status of Indonesian judges, (ii) the assignment of judges, (iii) recruitment, (iv) performance assessment and (v) the transfer and advancement system. The status issue principally addresses the conditions of employment (constitutional status & guarantees, income, administrative management) that relate to the (earlier) position of most judges as civil servants, and the subsequent shift to state officials (1999). Assignment relates to the mechanism by which the number of judges (for each court) and courts (for each jurisdiction) should be determined. Recruitment relates to the establishment of a professional, transparent and accountable method of judicial recruitment. Performance assessment addresses the issue of how to strengthen the mechanism and criteria by which judicial performance is determined. Transfer and advancement refers to the definition of judicial careers, and what mechanism can ensure proper administration thereof. 3. The Permanent Education Blueprint The issues dealt with in this Blueprint are (i) judicial training models, (ii) the organization of judicial training, (iii) teaching methods, (iv) curriculum design (v) performance monitoring. Judicial training models considers training models in some civil law and common law countries, and identifies basic conditions that must be met in all permanent education systems (including infrastructure & funding). The organization component deals with the place, structure and role of a national judicial training institute. The teaching method covers such matters as ideal balance between internal and external instruction, the role of interactive teaching methods and support mechanisms including the role of the media. Curriculum design focuses on a needs based curriculum design and looks at how this can be best realized. It identifies specific sub-groups within the judiciary that might need
specific targeted training, including non-judicial court staff. The final issue addresses the mechanism by which training can be extended to the large Indonesian judiciary. 4. The Financial Management Blueprint The issues covered by this Blueprint include (i) a review of various ways by which court budgets can be designed, (ii) current practices in court funding and (iii) elements where changes are proposed. The first component establishes the current budget practice basically relies on line item budgeting. It identifies the strengths and weaknesses thereof, as well as of other methods of budgeting (such as Zero Based Budgeting, Planning, Programming & Budgeting and Performance Budgeting). The second component looks at how, both for the routine and development budget, the judicia ry currently composes and realizes its budget. It includes a review of third party funds held (effectively) in trust by the judiciary, and of accounting mechanisms. The third component looks at how the prevailing mechanisms can be improved at all stages, including planning, realization, supervision and reporting, management of trust funds, and how budget adequacy is to be determined. It also considers the operation of the budget system after the establishment of the One Roof System (the transfer of court administrative authority to the Supreme Court). 5. The Judicial Commission Blueprint This Blueprint consists of two parts. The first is a substantive study of what a Judicial Commission should look like. The second is a Bill for a Judicial Commission. The principal headings of the substantive part are (i) Functions, Tasks and Authority, (ii) Internal Organization, (iii) Human Resources, (iv) Code of Judicial Conduct, (v) Procedure in exercising judicial supervision and (v) Judicial Commission and retroactive supervision (i.e. with regard to improprieties conducted prior to its establishment). The Judicial Commission Blueprint is different in a number of ways from the previous ones. It deals with an institution that is envisaged under the Constitution, but is not yet in existence. As a result it reflects less on actual institutional problems that need solving, though its very existence evidently responds to a demand for change. It is more forward looking as a result, and has a strong comparative component in which it looks at different ‘models’ of Judicial Commissions abroad. Distinguishing features of such different models particularly relate to three issues: status (independent or subsumed under either the executive or judicature), commission membership (active judges, retired or seconded judges, or including non-judges) and jurisdiction (principal focus on judicial discipline including recruitment, or on court management).