Recollecting the Decree Letter of the Chief Justice

 

Jakarta | badilag.net

As it has been known, Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) has been a must-exist rule of the court. So, when a court has its own SOP, is every court obliged to have kind of service standard as well? “What is the difference between them anyway?” This kind of question appears prominently since the issuance of the Decree Letter of the Chief Justice of Indonesian Supreme Court Number 026/KMA/SK/II/2012 on Courts Services Standard by the last February.

This is quite simple question and it makes sense for everyone to ask recollecting the current situation where every court has been establishing its own SOP steadfastly, whereas the SOP is something representing a rule of court service standard.

But according to Aria Sujudi, a member of Supreme Court’s Reform Team, the SOP and Courts’ Service Standard are two different things. To comprehend it clearly, he conveys a question to answer “Has SOP stood for Public Service Standard already? It has not yet, SOP rules internally, it would be something complicated for public to understand. A simple reason, public needs brief transparent document regulating their rights before the courts. Simply by questioning how long the case will run? How much is the case fee? etc.”

 

.

This lecturer in Indonesia University explained that the Decree No. 026/KMA/SK/II/2012 is originally derived from Law No. 25/2009 on Public Services which obliged every state institution performing public services to arrange its own Public Service Standard and all courts in every level are bound by this decree even the Supreme Court itself.

 

 

For your information, this service standard is designed for double goals. Apart of aims to improve the courts service quality for court users, it is also aims to upgrade public trust to state judiciary institutions as well.

Up to the Decree, there are four kinds of service available, 1). Service on Courts Administration, 2). Service on Legal Aid, 3). Service on Complaints and 4). Service on Information.

Systematically, the Decree contents of General Provisions, General Service Standard, Service Standard for the General Courts, Service Standard for the Religious Courts, Service Standard for the State Administrative Courts and Service Standard for the Military Courts.

One point frequently questioned is the overlap of the third point of this Decree which commanded all work unit of courts to arrange their own service standard tailored to their own committed service within six months since the issuance of the Decree while on the other hand the Decree itself has attached the details of what must be available in service standard for courts. Nonetheless, according to Aria Sujudi, the Decree rules in general, therefore all work unit should arrange the detail of the practical guideline themselves, such as the diversity of summon fee standard, since it has been various in numbers of regions.

(Ratu Ayu Rahmi)