Providing Justice to the Justice Seeker: - Family Court of Australia

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ForewordDirector General of the General Courtsof the Supreme Court of the Republicof IndonesiaThis General Courts access and equity survey, facilitated by the Indonesia Australia LegalDevelopment Facility (IALDF), is directly relevant to the General Courts strategic planning forthe reform of client service delivery.This AusAID-funded national level survey has resulted in findings that paint a picture ofaccess and equity for justice seekers in the General Courts. The information in the surveyfindings demonstrates from the perspective of General Courts users both client service needsand satisfaction, and an expectation of affordable services, as well as public trust and confidencewith regard to General Courts service delivery.In addition, this survey also provides judges and court staff with sketches of court performance.It is hoped that these can be valuable contributions to the design of programs and policy willimprove the quality of public service, public perceptions and court performance in general.Finally, we would like to express our high appreciation of the efforts of IALDF, the FamilyCourt of Australia, AusAID, PPIM UIN Jakarta, and all other parties who have helped in thecarrying out this survey, allowing it to now be presented in this publication. It is hoped that inthe future more activities with similar missions will be conducted and developed.Cicut SutiarsoDirector GeneralJakarta, 14 October 20092Providing Justice to the Justice Seeker A Report on the Access and Equity Study in theIndonesian General and Religious Courts 2007–2009
ForewordDirector General of the Religious Courtsof the Supreme Court of the Republicof IndonesiaBismillahirrahmanirrahim.The Religious Courts as one of the institutions of judicial power in Indonesia experiences ebbsand flows in its development from time to time. In order to deliver excellent service to thepublic, particularly justice seekers, the Religious Courts therefore need to make continuousefforts to change and improve.Significant change took place after Law No 7 of 1989 on the Religious Courts came into force.This was seen in, among other things, the granting of full independence to the Religious Courtsto execute their own judgments without needing endorsement from District Courts, as hadpreviously been the case.The next, and no less important, development was the implementation of the ‘one roof’judicial system under the Supreme Court, following the passing of Law No 35 of 1999 on theAmendment of Law No 14 of 1970 on Basic Provisions on Judicial Power, subsequently replacedby Law No 4 of 2004 on Judicial Powers. This system was implemented from 2004, when allcourt jurisdictions – from the General Courts to the Religious Courts, the military courts andthe state administrative courts – came under the authority of the Supreme Court on a range ofmatters, including on technical judicial matters, organisation, administration and finance.The Supreme Court is now preparing another blue print for the next 25 years of development(2010–2034). The blueprint is divided into five five-year ‘renstra’ or strategic plans as guidelinesfor the development of the Supreme Court and the courts below it. This blueprint was inspiredby the grand ‘dream’ of the Supreme Court for the ‘Realisation of Judicial Institutions ofExcellence in Indonesia’, a dream that then became its vision.The Directorate General for the Religious Courts, as part of the Supreme Court, has a clear dutyto create Religious Courts of excellence. Courts of excellence can be characterised as independent,modern, dignified, just and trusted by the public. This is in line with the terminology of ‘CourtExcellence’ developed in the International Framework for Court Excellence.One of the most important things to be done by the Supreme Court and the courts under it is todeliver the best possible services to the public, particularly justice seekers. To achieve this goal,effort, hard work and transparency are needed.For these reasons, this survey, conducted under the auspices of the Memorandum ofUnderstanding between the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia and the FederalCourt and the Family Court of Australia and facilitated by IALDF, has become very relevantand necessary for the improvement of services delivered by the courts. With this survey,the Religious Courts have become aware of the quality of services they have delivered andfeedback from court users. The courts have become aware of problems faced by court usersand their expectations, with regard to court fees, hearing process, time needed, place ofhearing and other issues.Providing Justice to the Justice Seeker A Report on the Access and Equity Study in theIndonesian General and Religious Courts 2007–20093
Page 2: © Mahkamah Agung and AusAID 2010Th
Page 6 and 7: ivProviding Justice to the Justice
Page 8 and 9: viProviding Justice to the Justice
Page 12 and 13: Whatever the results of this survey
Page 14 and 15: Key research findings (continued)5
Page 16 and 17: Key research findings (continued)11
Page 18 and 19: Chapter 1Introduction to Access and
Page 20 and 21: Data is currently being collected f
Page 22 and 23: Table 2Sampling methodology for cou
Page 24 and 25: 4 Poverty and legal access survey (
Page 26 and 27: Chapter 2Introduction to the Family
Page 28 and 29: The table below summarises cases de
Page 30 and 31: The importance of family law cases
Page 32 and 33: The Religious Courts hear two types
Page 34 and 35: The party seeking to have the court
Page 36 and 37: Chapter 3Summary of Key ResearchFin
Page 38 and 39: Clients of both the General and Rel
Page 40 and 41: Figure 6 continuedResults of Court
Page 42 and 43: 3 Women bring twice as many divorce
Page 44 and 45: 5 88% of PEKKA members (female head
Page 46 and 47: Table 13Cost of a Divorce Case in b
Page 48 and 49: The average actual court cost was R
Page 50 and 51: Table 14Number of days from case re
Page 52 and 53: 9 Efficient allocation of judicial
Page 54 and 55: Case StudyMalang Kabupaten Religiou
Page 56 and 57: The overwhelming majority of PEKKA
Page 58 and 59: Chapter 4Demographic Data from the
Page 60 and 61:
Table 20Income distribution for the
Page 62 and 63:
Legal status of marriageOver 50% of
Page 64 and 65:
Cost of a divorce caseThe main cost
Page 66 and 67:
Cost of a lawyerIn the survey of Re
Page 68 and 69:
Chapter 5Strategic Response to the2
Page 70 and 71:
Issues identified in the surveySugg
Page 72 and 73:
Issues identified in the surveySugg
Page 74 and 75:
Annex 1Extract from Government of I
Page 76 and 77:
Annex 2Summary of Recommendations m
Page 78 and 79:
6. The Registrar/Secretary of a cou
Page 80 and 81:
Acknowledgments andStudy Partners72
Page 82:
PEKKA’s Legal Empowerment Program
show all

Providing Justice to the Justice Seeker: - Family Court of Australia

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?