Supreme Court’s ADR Working Group Visits Australian Courts and Institutions
Jakarta | Badilag.net
For ten days since October 10th to 17th, 2013, Supreme Court’s ADR Working Group conducted a comparative study to Australia. The team was led by the Hon. Prof. Dr. Takdir Rahmadi, SH., LLM.
The institutions visited by the team were Family Court of Australia, Federal Court of Australia, National Alternative Dispute Resolution Center Advisory Council (NADRAC), Dispute Settlement Center of Victoria (DSCV), Australia Center for Justice Innovation, Monash University and others.
There were 15 persons of the team. They come from various elements, namely Supreme Court, Board of National Development Planning, and University of Indonesia.
The team members represented the Supreme Court consisted of the Hon. Prof. Takdir rahmadi, SH., LLM (Supreme Court Justice), Reza Fauzi, SH. C.N (Assistant of the Supreme Court Justice), Zahlisa Vitalia, SH (Directorate General of General Court), Ahmad Cholil, S. Ag., LL.M and Rahmat Arijaya, S. Ag (Directorate General of Religious Court), and DR. Abdullah, SH., MH (Center for Education and Training).
.
The team members represented the first instance courts are Diah Sulastri Dewi, SH., MH (Vise Chief of Cibinong District Court), Edy Wibowo, SH., MH (The Judge of Tasikmalaya District Court), Nur Lailah Ahmad, SH (the Judge of Yogyakarta Religious Court and M. Nur, S. Ag (the Judge of Padang Panjang Religious Court).
Meanwhile from outside of the judiciary, there are Haemiwan Fathoni (The assistance team for Judicial Reform), Hesti Pandanwangi, SH., MH (Board of National Development Planning) and Wirdyaningsih, SH., MH (University of Indonesia).
To support the process of comparative study, AIPJ (Australia Indonesia Partnership for Justice) assigned Wiwiek Awiati, SH., MH and Nisa Istiani, SH., MLI to facilitate all the process.
The comparative study itself is a part of the Supreme Court program in terms of court to court cooperation with Federal Court and Family Court of Australia. The Cooperation among the three institutions before has enriched and broadened their perspective respectively, and specifically the Supreme Court in arranging the internal regulation in terms of the refinement of the court case management.
The purpose of the comparative study was to learn about civil and family mediation, either inside or outside the court (Community Mediation Services).
And the comparative study was hoped to enrich the knowledge of the Supreme Court’s ADR Working Group to analyze the current process of mediation in Indonesia and to arrange the proposal on policy, regulation and even strategy to accelerate the implementation of mediation, either inside or outside the court.
[Mohammad Noor]