Minutes of Meeting 3nd Day Southeast Asia Regional Meeting on Legal Empowerment, Session, Workshop and Challenges for

Paralegal Programs Tuesday-Wednesday/ 6-7 November 2012, Jakarta, Indonesia

Session I, Mr. Bambang

The moderator announced to participants that after the presentation from Mr. Bambang, the next presenter would be Mr. Abdul Jamil, He would presented his material for about 15 minutes before the group presentation. Mr. Bambang thanks the panel for the 2nd chance. In this opportunity he will give additional information. In the next week, his agency will sign a MoU with Supreme Court about utilize and leverage the Legal Aid Centre. However, Legal Aid Centre is a mandate by three laws, which is Judicial Legislation, State Administrative Law and Legislation on Religion Courts. On the other hand, when all this Law was passed the expenses for the lawyers was the responsibility of Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. The mechanism of the continuity of this Legal Aid Centre will be written down in the MoU and this centre will be more empowered and likely not only in state courts or religion courts but also in Ministrys Regional Office where the underprivileged people which has problem with the laws will have easy access to Legal Aid. In about next one or two week the MoU would be finalized with the Supreme Court and as the Deputy of Minister explanation about the Judicial Reviews development, there are few related parties voluntarily partner with the government with this reviews. Mr. Bambang then asked the panel to give applause for YLBHI, LKBH Muhammadiyah University, Malang, LKBH Muhammadiyah University, Magelang and also Posbakum Madin which would be the partner of the government. With the contribution from these 4 parties, hopefully the judicial review will be completed as soon as possible and the government can concentrate with passing this Legal Aid Legislation bill. As already mention earlier about the verification and accreditation, it is the mandate of the legislation that should be implemented. Regardless of the constraints in the field, there is a need to verify the fact of physical evidence of the Legal Aid Providers. Lately there are a lot of new Legal Aid Providers emerge, whether of the concerns to help the underprivileged people or because of the Legal Aid Legislation itself. For now the verification only on participative way, but later the facts verification will be perform. Mr. Bambang also expressed the concern about who can get the Legal Aid. The Explanation of the Legislation No. 16/2011 about the Legal Aid mention: this Legal Aid only provide for the economically underprivileged people. Its been controversy until now. He already discuss this with Mr. Alvon from YLBHI, there is a disagreement about the definition of the poor people who can get the Legal Aid.

According to Mr. Alvons groups, there are many criteria of poor people, such as poor because of marginalized, legally blind, politically poor, etc. Until now the definition of poor people according to government means economically unable. So government will start from this definition. Hopefully in the next future government can accommodate other underprivileged people such as structurally poor, politically and poor in legal knowledge, etc. To measure the poverty scale, the bill drafting team has invited experts on poverty studies, two from UNDP, one from Badan Pusat Statitik or Central Statistical Agency and one from Ministry of Social Welfare. The Ministry of Social Welfare actually has passed the Legislation on the Poor. Actually after more explanation about poverty regarding of these experts or agencies definitions, the team has become more confused. What is poverty? There are some define poverty as people who consume rice less than a quarter kilos of rice or not consume rice at all, but how if the person consume pizza instead? There are some define poverty as people whose living in house made of bamboo, but how if they have one hundred cows? There are some made a formal approach, which means the people should has SKTM (Surat Keterangan Tidak Mampu) or Statement of Poverty but not only that, there should be Rice for the Poor Card and Direct Cash Aid, etc. The Legal Aid Provider also has obligations for the people they help. They are not only have access to the fund, but also has obligation to help to facilitate the people who need Legal Aid to which defined as underprivileged people to get their Statement of Poverty from the local authority such as Head of Village or Neighborhood Coordinator. This room is open now to make it easier. If this bill is compared with the Bar Association Legislation about Legal Aid presented by the Advocate, the Statement of Poverty should be from Head of District and its more complicated. So, in the Bill Draft has been listed that the team from Legal Aid Provider to facilitate the people with problem with law to get this paper from the Head of Village in the scene for the litigation process. In the final draft just few weeks ago, the government in this case Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has been proposed to give 20% of down payment for the Legal Aid Service Expenses, but Ministry of Finance has refused this proposal. There are two proposals for the system, first is reimbursement such as already been doing by Supreme Court and the second is down payment with bank guarantee. When the bank guarantee system was applied, there are a lot of Legal Aid Providers dont have bank guarantee. Finally there is agreement to cancel the down payment system and implement the reimbursement system. So, first working than reimburse. Its not the wish of Ministry of Justice but the provisions of law. The provision of the law says that the government cannot spend the fund before the goods and service has arrived. There is no inclination from the government to make things more complicated. Its provisions of law except the State Treasury Legislation revamped first. The drafting team apologizes beforehand. Some critics have been asking about the seriousness of governments intention in helping, but the recent law requires this reimbursement system to be applied in the bill.

Nowadays the team with Mr. Anis from UNDP will go to Bogor to finalize the bill final draft about Legal Aid Standardization. The drafting of this legislation was facilitate by the UNDP which represented by Mr. Anis. There are some bills and Ministry regulations have been facilitated by the partners. Hopefully in one or two meetings, the draft of this Ministry Regulations has been finalized, so the next step is only doing verification. In 2013 hopefully this program will be running and giving the legal aid for the underprivileged people. After his presentation, Mr. Bambang say his thanks and salutation to the panel. The Moderator thanks Mr. Bambang for his presentation and invited the participants to ask questions. The time for questions and answer is about 5 minutes before Mr. Bambang should go to another meeting. A quick question came from one participant about how the government helping the NGO due to the Treasury Regulation for the claiming of disbursement or expenses that the NGO spend for the case. Mr. Bambang said his thanks for the question and explained that the funding mechanism still in discussion whether itll be block grant or per cases. In the regulation, their concept is the legal aid provider can submit the proposal first for previous cases. So the amount that legal aid providers received depends on the programs or the planning. The planning not only for what will do next but also the scale of what will do. For example, if this year the proposal is for 100 cases but from last year the cases that has been done only two cases, the Ministry office wont consider the proposal because the increasing number will not significant and wont be reach 20 times from last year. It the proposal for about 5 cases, the Ministry office can make consideration. Hopefully with the program framework that has been submitted by the legal aid provider can match with the availability of the funds and the funds can absorb by the legal aid providers. The nature of these funds is proportional which means it is available in every province from Aceh to Jayapura. In the mapping that has been performed, some of the legal aid organization hasnt been verified in administrative side. From Papua to Aceh, the fund allocation wont be the same; it is depend on the program that has been proposed. It will be the number of cases that has been solved the previous year. The Ministry Office will be more reasonable and wont decide haphazardly. There will be no room for fraud. The other participant asked permission to speak in Indonesia. According to Mr. Zaza that said the legislation and regulation in Indonesia is really generous because it gives opportunity and accommodates all the poor people. But there is a need to choose the priority with the regulation. If it is not regulated by the law, who will decide? It will be hard on the legal aid provider to decide which case will be taken care of. It will be easier if it is regulate by the law for the decision making, so it wont be someones personal decision, but regulation by the law. It will be easier in implementation. The question comes up from Mr. Zaza experience in Georgia. For the first five years there are some requirements that need to fulfill, specifically for the legal advice, legal information and criminal law from this country. There is a concern until now for the need of criminal law in Indonesia, where in the next two or three years there will be problems in decide the priority of cases. As a former

practitioner, the participant knows that the lawyer more glad in doing judicial review, paralegal training or interesting cases. They are better going to other places than presented drugs cases in the police station. So, there should be no room in choosing cases, the paralegal should know their duty to perform such as the criminal law every day. Example in South Africa, the number of lawyer that presented criminal law is really low and they are highly respected in high-level court especially for the lawyer that giving legal aid in criminal law. From his opinion, it is easier if it decided by the law than waiting for the Minister Decree or other decision maker. Mr. Bambang said his thanks for the comment and recommendation. This Legal Aid Legislation rather complicated, because there are a wide range cases that covered by this law such as Civil Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Court, Litigations and Non-Litigations. There are possibilities when someone asking the statement of poverty from head of village they will be asked the purpose of the letter and answer that the letter is a requirement for suing the state. And it is allowed to ask state funding to sue the state. Ministry of Justice and Human Rights has idea to run a pilot project in one province to implement this legislation. So, not all provinces will implement this legislation at the same time. But the provision of the law is clear to cover all the Civil Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Courts, Litigations and non-Litigations cases. It cannot diverge from the regulation unless the law says different and asking for the priority. Mr. Bambang informed that until present, there are 18 districts already planned the budget. This also answer Mr. Zaza question about the possibility for the districts to plan the budget for legal aid. From the monitoring, there are 18 districts and provinces level that has planned the budget for Legal Aid but all for criminal law cases. There is no budget yet for Administrative Courts or Civil Law cases. And in some districts even emphasize the related parties not to sue them even it is allowed. Actually the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights agree for the priority, pilot project only for certain province, only thinking about Criminal Law only or Civil Law only, but the provision of the law says to cover all. This is to answer Mr. Patricks questions. Last question came from Mr. Alex from LBH. He made a comment about the financial system of this legislations provision. It is hard for the Legal Aid Provider for the reimbursement system because Legal Aid isnt a core business. It is impossible to initially funds the legal aid by them self. Legal Aid Providers arent the same as private company that has contract as service providers. So Mr. Alex guarantees that with the reimbursement system no Legal Aid Providers can perform their programs in giving Legal Aid to the needs. The 50 billion rupiah funds in Ministry of Justice and Human Rights will be untouched because there isnt one legal aid providers can fund their own program. Reimburse after perform their duty. No Legal Aid Provider has self funding because they are not a profit enterprise but nonprofit organizations. This is one thing that can be recommended to Ministry of Finance. They realize that the spirit of this legislation is cooperation between government and private agencies. But in Legal Aid Providers context, they are not profit enterprise but perform duty for the country. They facilitate states obligation to provide Legal Aid for the needs. He emphasized that this funding will not working if the system is reimbursement because Legal Aid Providers are nonprofit entity not a business enterprise.

Mr. Bambang said that he thinks the same thing as Mr. Alex and understand the problem. He often discusses this with Mr. Alvon in his office in Diponegoro 74 (YLBHI Office, Jakarta). He still optimist because the reporting shouldnt wait until the end of the year to be submitted. After the case is solving, the report can submitted directly with the case number, court decision letter, executions letter attached for reimbursement. They shouldnt wait until December to submit the reimbursement. Even if there are 100 cases solving by the August, the organization welcomed to reimburse it. The most important thing is the evidence. Mr. Bambang asked Mr. Alex to give his commendations to Ministry of Finance about this matter. But now the Ministry Decree has changed, from the initial 20% of the cases perform to be the recent provisions. This can be checked in the websites. Hopefully with this case per case scenario for
reimbursement wont cause resistance from the Legal Aid Organizations to help the underprivileged people because the Ministry Office has open more room for every case the same as providing statement of poverty. So this legal aid can be accessed easily.

With this Mr. Bambang asked permission to finish his session because he should leave to Bogor for the finalization of the legislation draft. But before he left, the moderator ask a clarification from him if the financial rule for reimbursement is only for litigation cases or also for non litigation cases, for legal information advice. Because for legal information advice they have 50, 100 everyday and it does not depend on the number of cases. How do government fund this in advance. Mr. Bambang answered that both litigations and non litigations will covered by the government and in the Additional Regulation Draft there are 10 types that listed. He asked for the Legal Aid Organization to perform non litigations work such as legal consultation, mediation, advocacy, research, drafting and process the letter of admonition. This already implemented in PosBanKum (Legal Aid Center). The government regulations are for both litigations and non litigations and the organization not allowed giving assistance only for one type of cases such as concentrate in litigation cases only. So one requirement that should fulfill by the organization is having minimum one Advocate that have Licenses to represent for both litigation and non litigation cases. Some of the Legal Aid and Consultation Agency from State University has agree for this requirement, Gajah Mada University even hire their alumni to represent their cases in courts and cover both litigation and non litigation cases. So the organization cannot concentrate in type of case because the proposal should submit in one package. The government realizes that non litigation cases reports are more complicated than litigation cases because the organization should adopt the government system of reporting. Example: for legal training, there should be list of participants, the presenter, and documentation for the reports. This more complicated but hopefully will give more balance in perform their work. The moderator also asked if the non litigation cost should reimburse at the end or paid in advance. And Mr. Bambang said its also reimbursed at the end. The moderator thought that will be a problem. In litigation people dont know how long the case will run, sometimes people have to wait. Sometimes its a short case or a long case. And the Legal Aid Provider have many of those. So He suggested that you government contracting NGO or legal provider providing services on daily basis. As many people as come. Everybody can come and ask for advice, He thought in that will be

very difficult for an organisation to work without money only to get money at the end because it depends on legal advice. It depends on function to cover province, district, or the village. So there is a possiblity in a contract. Half of the payment for this function. It doesnt depend on advice that legal aid provider give to someone. Mr. Bambang said there are significant difference between litigation and non litigation cases. For the litigations, Board of Trustees of National Law has done the accountability report. There is a scale to measure this. For Litigation Legal Consultation, there is a standard for the legal advice cost. And the proposal for the non litigation cost cannot exceed from litigation cost. From initially 20% than rise to 30% but cannot more than the budget that has been spending for litigation process. This is happened because the previous legislation only covered the non litigation. The non litigation report is based on the standard that is performed by the Ministry Office and other agencies. Once again Mr. Bambang said thanks for the opportunity to present the progress of Legal Aid Bill draft and the moderator thanked Him back for his willingness to give his presentation in the rush to another meeting for the Bill Draft finalization.

Session II, Mr. Pablo Ahwan The next session there are two presentations, the first is Legal Aid Law from the perspective of legal providers by Mr. Pablo Ahwan, the chair person from LBHI and the next is presentation from Mr. Abdul Jamil, the director of Legal Clinic UII. Firstly Mr. Ahwan clarified that YLBHI not owned by him alone, but owned by the entire fellow activist. He presented his perspective on behalf of other paralegals with the same experience and there is a development on costan GL from the forum. They ask participation from Mr. David and Mr. Zaza to be the expert on user green. There is a lack of understanding from the lawyer in pro bono process with legal as part of funding obligation. The costan GL is not only on behalf of YLBHI but open to all parties. These activities should be for all the activists and open to wider interest about Legal Aid Organizations management. In this perspective Mr. Ahwan wants to reminds all that this legislation mostly affected by the reality of Indonesian citizen, especially for the social injustice and structural injustice. There were 4 scopes of YLBHI what represents in courts, they are: Civil Law, Criminal Law, Administrative Courts, Constitutional Courts and also Court-martial. Mr. Ahwan informed that the process of drafting the Legislation and Ministry Regulation that facilitated by YLBHI is participative like Mr. Bambang has explained. In the process, there is agreement to disagree of few things that has been discussed. Even though there are disagreement between both parties the relationship still continue because part of this process is to bridge the mutual concerns of every related parties and reaching an agreement. The goals for this Legal Aid are for the benefit of community, not only for the civil society or NGOs, because the funding is public funds. This fund isnt for the Legal Aid Provider to take for their organization. This is about principles, the financial problems starting from the legal services. From

the beginning this legal services has become a problem because the principle is how the country can perform her obligation to provide legal aid. In this context there are some polemics in the process of formulation. From Ministry of Finances side, they are following the standards. Therefore there is a polemic of distributing the funds to the legal providers - as the intermediary between the poor people if using the advance payment or reimbursement system or split to two or three terms of installment. On the bilateral formulation or three parties discussions between Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights and Secretary of Cabinet this has been changed. The problem is starting from this point because the lawyers define this legal aid as legal services. This is unclear between the concept of state obligation and lawyers rights. In this matter there has been another regulation in Legal Aid Legislation. There is also outstanding issues compare to other countries. This is about profession; this has been presented before that the profession cannot be included. This is dangerous in picking up the organization that included as the organization that receives the funding. The organization such as FBI, FORKABI and other organizations similar to this are community groups. They have the rights to establish a legal aid organization but there should be a mechanism for them. Because they can use the funds they received for their own benefit. For political party, the Ministry Regulation has clear to forbid the political party to establish a legal aid organization. As for the funds distributions, if the mechanism is reimbursement at the end of the case, there will be some problems. Like Zazas explanation that every case has its own treatment and in one year there is no guarantee that the case is solved whether its criminal law, civil law or administrative courts. The other problems that comes up is there was an independent agency that has been formulated as an agency under the Ministry Office but this has been rejected by the government. There has been a thought to set up a committee but there has been a normative problem that need to taking care of. In this context there is no room for changes unless there is initial judicial review. And also there is a need to change the regulation about monitoring institutions to prevent the clash between the institutions. This is the authority of the Ministry as regulated in the legislation about the obligation and authority but there is a strategy to let some of Ministers authority to the committee such as written down in chapter 6 and 7 of the legislation if the Minister is agree. The consideration based on chapter 7 paragraphs 1 that says monitoring and make sure that the legal aid represented appropriate with the principle and the legislation. Other matter is, the committee can verify and certify to rate the legal aid providers. The committee also has authority to review the certification as written down in chapter 5 and 6 and the independency of the committee become more crucial. The civil society can perform this monitoring. This is all the point of view from YLBHI according to certification of Legal Aid Legislation and potential problems that will come up.

Session III, Mr. Abdul Jamil After thanked the moderator and other participants Mr. Abdul Jamil explain that he would present the material about Bills Draft. There is some understanding that needs to be clarified. In the chapter 3 of the Bill there is a need to add one understanding or explanation or paragraph that says the legal aid providers can cancel the legal aid if the person who received it doesnt fulfill the criteria that mention in the legislation. The other is as mention in chapter 5 paragraph 1a; it is mention that the legal aid provider should has legal status. It is difficult for legal aid provider from University because this agency usually part of or one entity with the with the faculty or university structure. So they run their program as an agency of the University. If they should have their own legal status, it will bring out certain issue. The next one is chapter 8 paragraph 2p; the verification committee. There should be two academics in the verification committee. There should be an explanation of whom the academics that has been mention in this Bill. There is a concern that the academics has no proper experience in Legal Aid practice or just pick up or recommended by the faculty that has no experience in running Legal Aid Program. Paragraph 2d mention that 1 member of the committee should be from the legal aid provider. That can be a bias because there is some legal provider such as YLBHI that has experiences for many years. Chapter 8 paragraph 2 mentions that the paralegal of the legal aid provider should have experiences for at least 2 years and non partisan. There is a need to add this 2 years period become at least for 5 years as mention in the legislation. From the experience, there are some legal aid funds distributed without proper qualification and un-proportional. Chapter 16 paragraph 2 about refusing the legal aid, there should be criteria for the reason to refuse the legal aid. If the legal aid provider refuses to represent the case, there should be apparent reasons. And there are no clear criteria in the Bill. In chapter 18 about legal aid for legal aid provider, in connection with the case closed or withdrawn, the case closed with the evidence of the verdict of peace, court order, court ruling or dismissal of the case, etc. If there is a revocation of power of Attorney Letter, there should be an explanation behind the reason for the revocation. If the reason is the client not satisfy with the legal service that presented by the provider with some certain notes, this could be a correction for the legal aid provider. Chapter 19 paragraph 2c about legal accompaniment or legal counsel aid in Administrative Court, there is no need to specify it because in general it has been explained as Civil Law, Criminal Law and Administrative Courts. So it needs to simplify. Chapter 19 paragraphs 3 about certain legal aid as mention in paragraph 1 can represent by paralegal and or academics or students with delegation evidence attached. There is no need for the letter of delegation because it has substitution meaning. It is enough represented by the lecturer or the student from the legal aid provider under university because they are under supervision of certify advocate.

In the present condition, the student cannot represent to the court because the Advocate Legislation. Before the legislation was passed, the student can enter the court without permission letter. Whit this regulation there is a delegation from the initial legal consultation until the court room represented by the lecturer and students under supervision of the advocate. There is no need for delegation evidence; the most important thing is the name of the advocate is mention in the letter of authority although the client is represented by the student or the lecturer. Other things that need further discussion are the legal counsel funds that mention in the Bill. This has been presented by Mr. Bambang as a constraint that needs to anticipate. In the context of legal aid provider under the University structure this reimbursement system wont be a problem because this will be part of their community service funds and excluded from the Advocate Legislation.

Session IV After the presentation from Mr. Abdul Jamil, the moderator opened the floor for comments from several experts and give opportunity for the representative from Thailand. After thanked for giving the opportunity attend the conference during these few days she explained that this is very important, the session. Actually She came to Indonesia because to learn a lot, to get experiences, opportunity rather than to make contribution. Because in Thailand still slow progress than Indonesia. The representative from Thailand has learned a lot these past 2 days and the knowledge has made a good contribution to their country. Now they have picked up the Bill that has been drafted six years ago to make more progress. She wanted to give some comments to the legal law of Indonesia, to share experiences they have in Thailand. The Indonesias law is very progressive; anyhow some provisions need more interpretation. As said that many cases need to be reviewed by the judicial review. The interpretation of law should be empower the people and include rather than exclude them. This is part of the principle of accessible. As is the person who is eligible to get the legal aid, It is not clear whether the non Indonesian or expatriate is eligible to get the legal aid or not. Theres a question whether the immigrant workers entitle to get legal aid or not In Thailand. Specially half of the immigrants enter illegally. Thailand includes those marginalized persons to be in the program. Specially to those that come to Thailand illegally. We include those marginalized to even further help them before the law. This provision consider for how long they stay in Thailand. There are so many law and regulations in the past that discriminate the women and give more rights to the men including the rights to gel legal aid. This law is very great effort from Indonesia, but this is open the room to many organizations to claim that they are legal aid providers for the purpose is to get profit from this provision. How can they make sure that the budget will be given to the right legal providers, as she believes that they will have bad and good guys? She believes that this law should be amendment after it is passed. So there is a need to prevent the bad guy to destroy the law. The committee member should have few categories and at least there should be 1 or 2 people that represent the legal aid recipients. Usually the poor people dont have any voice, for the benefit of the poor that should be the center of this law. The ministry should have the power to supervise because this is important for the legal aid provider to function well.

Another thing in Thailand is that the lawyer is appointed by the court so they can get more than one provider and this brings competition among them to give the better services. Another issue is not for the provider but for the legal aid itself about the database system of the legal aid. The database system is very important. How to develop the database system is important, not only for management efficiency, but also to reform of this law. In the future the database would be for the research on justice reform, to have more measures to prevent the dispute, to reduce the demand of the legal services.

Session V After the comment from Thailand representative, the moderator welcomed the Director of ILRC that organized the event. Mr. Budi explained that he wanted to share some problems about the legal clinic especially the legal entity matters. Society Organization has been one choice to be the legal aid providers that has legal entity. In reference to Society Organizations Legislation, it is not easy for this organization to be one of legal aid provider. There should be more flexibility. Another problem is the availability of Certify Advocate in Legal Aid Provider Organization. One example from Philippine, they have student practice rule. In the future this student practice rule can implement where the student can empower to give legal aid and working with certain standard and criteria. They should obey the law and has reach certain credits and learn certain subjects such as civil procedural law, criminal procedural law, Administrative Courts procedural law, etc. and also should under supervision of their lecturer and certify advocate. For the judicial review for Mr. Alvon, there should be certain interpretation of eligibility of the poor people, if the criteria still relevant for present conditions or no. At least the argument about interest of justice can be used to make criteria of legal aid recipients. It is shouldnt give for the poor people only but can perform to in special interest or conditions. We can ask the interpretation of the Supreme Court. Also the independency of Legal Aid Provider, there should be interpretation to define their independency. Also about the Independent Advisory Committee for accreditation and verification, as he discuss with Mr. Zaza and Taufiq the previous day, he is agree with the independency of this committee in decision making even though there are some NGO refuses the independency of this committee. The Legal Aid Legislation doesnt force the Legal Aid Providers to obey this Independent Advisory Committee if they dont want to access the legal aid funds. So there are no consequences.

Session VI After the comment from Mr. Budi, the moderator welcomed Mr. Widiana, a Leading Expert in Indonesia Justice System to give some comments on the more regulation that has been drafted.

After decades of experiences in drafting legislation Mr. Widiana would like to share a bit about Legal Aid System. He gave comments to Mr. Alvon, that there are three legislations that have been passed before the Law No. 16/2011 has been drafted about the Legal Aid Center. There is Law No. 48 about Judiciary, Law No. 49 about Public interest and then Law No. 50 about Religious Courts. All this law mentions that every courts level should establish a Legal Aid Center to accommodate the underprivileged people. The design is starting in 2010 and implemented in 2011 and start running in 2012. Whit this Law No. 16/2011, there is no budget for the year 2013. From their experiences, the legal aid covers all the civil, criminal, litigation and non litigation cases, and Religious Courts only handle the Civil Law cases. In Indonesia, the Religious Court receive 360.000 cases per year. For the Legal Aid Center, because it is a mandate by the Law, they have schedule 50 center every year. In whole of Indonesia there are 350 Religious Courts, so this program will finish in 7 years starting from 2011. Because of the budget limitation, there were only 46 center has been open in the Religious Courts. To decide on how many people can receive this legal aid per year, the center will look back the cases from previous year and compare it to the budget and divide it in to some groups. Every day from Monday Thursday there are 2 people every 3 hours or varied depends on the needs of every regions. The reimbursement not counts per cases. The whole case should be counted to prepare the budget. Example if there are 41.000 cases in 2011, every cases been charge for 100.000 IDR then for the whole courts level there should be 4,1 billion IDR budget. In the report, on 2011 there are only 35.000 hours of legal counsel that has been performed, because the number dont base by the cases covered, but from the hours that paralegal performs. There is or no cases or consultation they will be paid. The payment is using the monthly block system, not by reimbursement system. In reality, even though their responsibility is only 3 hours but in the implementation can more than 3 hours. From the target 11.000 hours can reach 35.000 hours. Because the payment is by block grant there is more excitement from the paralegals. This is not about the business, not about profit and loss but about giving legal aid. Another thing from the Religious Courts is most of the people that has problems with law is only proposed for legal consultation. The system that implemented by Law No. 16/2011 is per case system, the Religious Courts has coordinated with the National Law Development Agency (BPHN). If the block grant system has run well in Religious Court or Special Courts, why not implemented it in every level of courts? There should be MoU between the Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice and Human Rights so the budget can be determined for the number of hours that should performed by the paralegal or advocate. Actually there are some concerns from Religious Courts that after provided the Legal Aid for many years, they cant provide it anymore after the Legislation has passed. So they are really appreciated the BPHN if this Legal Aid Budget can continue to run. But it should be controlled technically. What has been run well these long years should be maintained and if Per Cases System is applied, from the 50,000 cases by the case number 5.000 the budget has been finish.

Season VII, Mr. David After a quick presentation from Mr. Widiana, the moderator gave about 15-20 minutes for question and answer or some comments on the presentations in todays event. Mr. David picked up a couple points of problems that rise about the presentation of UII Legal Clinic. Mostly the Universities are legal entity and the Clinic is technically integrated to the University as Legal Entity. It should put a new definition to the regulation to clarify about Legal Entity and Clinic that affiliated to University. The other thing about Academics, most legislation says that the people should have some short of experience of Legal Aid. There should be provisions for nomination that nominated by university or through clinic or something about this. From general commends that all the people of the committee should be nominated by their constituency and the Minister should point from the nomination. The Minister cant go around choosing among friend to a friend but should be nominated and can put in the regulation. And the point from Ulis question about NGO or CSO that wants to get money from treasury as Legal Aid Providers does affect by the legislation. It is interesting that from Religious Courts can give a block grant for the Legal Aid and most would like this put on the regulations. If the treasury doesnt object for them to do it, why the other NGOs cant do it? This can be use as a precedent to push it. The other point that was raised by Patrick or Zaza is from the regulation many talking about the means or purposes of civil and criminal law and the priority for the vulnerable groups such as women, refugees and children this need to put in the regulation too. So not every people running around and try to give legal aid to everybody. There is also a need of the way to put cooperation agreement between the Ministry and the Legal Aid Providers about their duties or responsibilities about what rights they have and what things they cant do. This needs to put in the regulation. There is a need of provision for cooperation agreement. For the people that have been refused of legal aid, everybody said they must be given reason in writing. But there is nothing said that they should given an opportunity to make representation if they dont want to be refused of the legal aid. There is a natural justice provision there to look at that. That is not only for the people that appealing against that not gets the legal aid but also for the trying. There should be some appeals procedure to somebody, to legal aid providers or the ministry for them. It is also the need of provision in the regulation if half way through the poor people is suddenly become rich, and maybe they should not get the legal aid anymore and the legal aid provider wants to draw the legal aid there should be an opportunity for them to get explanation on why they shouldnt get the legal aid. All the regulations always talk about the draw of accreditations not about the draw of the legal aid. This needs to look at as well.

Season VIII, Mr. Totok Yulianto (PBHI, Jakarta) After Mr. David gave some of comments, the moderator gave opportunity for another participant to give his comments. Mr. Yulianto from Perhimpunan Bantuan Hukum dan Hak Azasi Manusia Indonesia (Legal Aid and Human Rights Group) gave his comments about the material that has been presented. From the government regulations and legislations that he has learned, the experts said that there have been many shortcomings still on the regulations. For this he thanked Mr. Alvon from YLBHI for his contribution in Government team for the Bill drafting. He agrees for some opinions that said this

regulation should be evolved become better. The problems that come up is, what kind of strategy that can be done by the civil society or the legal aid provider on the people that receive the legal aid to refine the process or the existing regulations, because it is impossible to make revision on the legislations every year. What kind of strategy that this regulation provides to give the legal aid and how to access it. Before there is the legislation about the legal aid, the legal aid practice has been existed in every level of courts, legal aid centre and other legal aid providers. But with this new legislation, there is a change in the system that the practitioner should try before seen the lack of the system and which part needs improvement. It will be hard to keep the process of the old regulations. From His point of view, the legal aid practice in Supreme Court is good but not gives maximum services since its only give legal advice and not represents in the court process. The person that gave legal advice and represent in the court process are different and the legal advice sometimes not really good since they are lack of knowledge of the process in the courts.

Season IX Mr. Arief Maulana (LBH Jakarta) has some questions about the mechanism of legal aid funds distributions. There are some concerns about the reimbursement system. So he wants to know the experiences from other countries about their system of the distribution of this legal aid funds and also the advantages and disadvantages of both block grant and reimbursement systems. Mr. Zaza tried to answer this question which is connected to the questions he asked Mr. Bambang before he left. He tried to see whether there is a different treatment between litigation and non litigation legal aid. And within litigations criminal also have different treatment. The experiences from other countries there is a general problems in the criminal matters if the providing of legal aid based on extradite models where the lawyers is appointed to give the legal aid and the government will cover the cost. It is a provision of the private lawyer to give the legal aid and the reimbursement would happened after the cases finish and after the cases are finished there is a report of the case of legal aid so the lawyer should request for the reimbursement to the legal aid authority for the cost. This is also the way how probably other models of criminal legal aid work for rich people still get private provider but for a kind of special registry for the group of people who are appointed to provide the criminal legal aid. But for the countries where they use Public Defender Models there is a full time legal aid lawyers office, exclusively for the criminal legal aid. In that case those lawyers receive fixed payments each month almost like a salary. So they are not paid per case or per work load, but fixed payment each month for they are willing full time to criminal legal aid. In some countries there are full time criminal legal aid providers in the kind of private entities of criminal aid providers or a kind of criminal law firm form to provide the criminal legal aid services. In Public Defender Models there are also models of centers establish by the legal aid authorities like South Africa Legal Aid Board establish Justice Center. These centers are staffed by full time criminal defense lawyers, so they will receive fixed amount each month for their full time services. So this is how generally this is handled. There is a difference for the non criminal legal aid such as the Religious Court in Indonesia or other places where there is a Legal Aid Counters which is Legal Aid Advice Centers. In these places the

citizens or non citizens can ask for basic legal information advice for about half an hour for free. If there is a need of more advice because of the problems are more complicated than others, there is another additional process to determine which person should received it for free and afterward determined which person will get legal representation or the type of litigations or not. This legal aid advice will free for everybody and usually there is no eligibility for determination of everybody to receive it because generally it takes time and effort to determine the eligibility of this little service so everybody will get these legal services for free. The people who give advice in this legal aid center are full time people so they get salary and the financial guarantee of the job. They cant paid by reimbursement but they are employed to sit there eight hours a day and five days a week to provide their services. They get full time function and office. Zaza said that he is happy that from experience this kind of model has already in practice. Ministry of Justice had BPHN (National Legal Advice Agency) that agree this model is working. Then why they should change it and should be corrected first. If it is worked for the Religious Court why is it cant work for others? If there is a precedent, the Ministry of Finance should accept this as a good experience then invite to other legal aid services and providers to provide non litigations services. It is useful to determine the legal aid procedures or distinction of the function from non litigation type of services and paid them out in advance of block grants for six months or a year. When it comes to litigations without determining how many cases they should cover, how many cases they can cover, how much money is available to cover, it is extremely difficult to determine who they should give the legal aid, on what cases, should they priorities the criminal procedures or not and at the end of the day how much money they have in the budget to cover it. So there should be no payment in advance for those things. At least it should be cleared that there is a mandate to provide criminal legal representation. There should be clarity from the beginning what should be expected to happen. Otherwise it is imaginable that the legal aid providers that provide litigations, by the end of the year report back to the Ministry to request the payment of the money, they have done many cases more that their budget. This type of problems can happen to many organizations. This point can debated with the Ministry for more details. After answer the questions the moderator informed that there is only a little time left and invited for more questions or comments. There is a comment from a participant from Religious Courts that said the type of their budget is a kind of block grant but not a full time employee for the legal aid providers. They are paid on timely bases for how long they are working there giving the legal advice. If they are working four days a week and three hours a day (with the rate of 100,000 IDR per hour), they will paid by the accumulated working hours per months, so not per cases. It is based on the budget of the concern courts. The time determination is based on the number of last year cases. For example, for 2011 the number of cases has been targeted for 11.000 cases but the reality was 35.000 cases. For this year it is targeted for 50.000 cases and until the last counts the number has reach more than 30.000 cases that been covered. The number of the courts rises from 46 on 2011 to 69 for this year. The system in this Religious Courts is really good even though the legal aid services that given not until representation in the courts but it is possible for the representation in courts after the new Bill is passed. From BPHN appraisal this system is good but the method of payment still in discussion in because this method doesnt said in the regulation. He is suggested that since there is no provision

in the regulation about this kind of payment for Religious Courts, there should be a MoU between Ministry of Justice and Human Rights with Supreme Courts to make this in detail. There is a clarification from one presenter about that the eligibility for the people that received the legal aid. There is an agreement to disagree between the YLBHI and BPHN about the cases that should covered by the legal aid providers. YLBHI recommends that this legal aid also provided to the foreigners especially for the one that has problems with criminal law. Today reality there is a lot of criminal cases in jail that hasnt represented by the lawyer and not assured of their rights. Hopefully in the future, government in this case BPHN can provide legal aid especially for criminal cases and also State Administrative Courts. From observations sometimes in Civil Law cases, one legal aid providers face other legal aid providers because both parties involved are poor people. There is a need for BPHN to regulate this in Standard Operating Procedures. So there is no need to change the provision of the regulation. For the Advisory Body, there are some parties that refused this. There are some problems that come up. There was a mapping that was done by some organization with BPHN Letterhead without proper confirmation about this Advisory Body, so some organization refused this mapping. There was also a debate if the status of this Body should be permanent of not. One of the Paralegal Organization suggested that this body shouldnt be permanent but more of an Ad Hoc because there is no need in establish a new government agency for this. According to Ministry of Finance, the payment can be done by reimbursement system. This is in accordance with the Procurement Regulations where Legal Aid counts as Services, so the service should be done first before the payment proceed. Because this regulation is Precedential Regulation, actually it can be retorted with Ministry Regulation but there is a new team member from Ministry of Finance which disqualifies the previous regulation about this payment method. But from his point of few this regulation can be retorted and the installment system can be applied. It only needs the willingness and the courage of Ministry of Justice especially BPHN to implemented this. There is a difference on what has been done by the Courts with the Laws No. 48, 49 and 50 because the essence of these Laws is non litigation and for the new legislation is until the legislation. Another participant asked if there is a regulation that opens opportunity for the CSO to give advice about the strategy or correction to the future Bills Draft. Example there should be a door for CSO to give input for the implementation of the Legal Aid Bill about the verification. About this verification there is only a body in doing this and after the verification is done the process is stop and there is no place to give advice. There should be a regulation to open the door for giving contribution. The presenter said that there are some things that can be done; first they can change the provision of the regulation especially about the body that can do the verification and accreditation. This body means that there is a new agency established. The other possibility is not changing the regulation, but written down that ministry regulation is a delegation of duties and authority. The verification, accreditation and standardization are delegation of duties from Minister to the staff under Him/her this means that the committee has another duty for monitoring, to oversee and ensure the implementation of this process. So there is additional provision on the ministry regulation but not changing the legislation. Other thing that can be done is having monthly meeting between BPHN, CSO and other related parties to monitor the implementation of this regulation. These three choices

are depend on all the related parties that involved formulizing it. This need encouragement from the civil society to legitimized this. He also informs that there will be a MoU between Legal Aid Organizations with House of Representative (DPR) about how the legal aid providers running their programs. This Bill is about how to access the legal and justice system. One of it is the mechanism of appealing by the person that has not given the legal aid by the legal aid services and the other is mechanism of complain that hasnt been formulized yet. Other participant said that he is interested in the differences between the legal aid center in the Religious Courts that said in the Law No. 48, 49 and 50 with the Law No. 15/2011. If the Law No. 15/2011 is passed doesnt automatically replace the system that has been implemented by the Religious Court which is really good. Mr. Alfon answer that the Religious Courts Law is only for non litigations where the Legal Aid Legislation is for all types of cases. In the last draft of the legislation there is one point where there is a need to harmonize this legislation with other related Laws or Regulations so there is no collides. The moderator thanks for all participants for the discussion and hope that this can be useful for the policy maker and civil society that much involved in this process. Hopefully with this kind of discussions, the civil society can provide some useful information for the policy maker. The regulations or the method or the type of cases, every short comings that has been discuss is really important for the civil society to provide information for their government and what kind of demand that can be cover and the quality of legal services. By the end this is not about Legal Aid Providers or its not about courses or its about lawyers but this all about legal service to the people. How to make sure the quality and how the civil society can provide information about the evidence to what happened in practice. For the implementation of the law, there is both a trial and error for the government to adjust.