On 16 September 2014, the House of People’s Representatives ratified Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyrights Law (“New Copyrights Law”) to replace Law No. 19 of 2002 on Copyrights (“Law No. 19/2002”).

Those in the creative industries, in particular, are positive about the new Copyrights Law providing greater legal certainty in protecting creations. The government, on the other hand, hopes the new Copyrights Law will enable the creative industries to contribute more to the nation’s economy.

The new Copyrights Law is more comprehensive and straightforward than Law No. 19/2002. It provides clarity on a number of copyrights issues which Law No. 19/2002 is silent on and has 48 more articles than Law No. 19/2002 (which has 78 articles).

The key features of the new Copyrights Law are as follows:

1.    New Concept and Definitions

The new Copyrights Law introduces new terminologies and provides new and clearer definitions compared to Law No. 19 of 2002.

For example, the new Copyrights Law recognises that the existence of copyright protection is conditional upon whether the work is in a tangible form. This is consistent with the ‘fixation’ concept under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. However, the scope of fixation under the new Copyrights Law covers only “the recording of sound, images or both, that is visible, audible, duplicable, or communicated through any devices,” in relation to performances and phonograms instead of the object of copyright as a whole.

2.    Extension of Copyrights Duration

The new Copyrights Law reaffirms that copyright consists of both moral and economic rights.

Under the new Copyrights Law, creators have timeless protection in regard to their moral rights to put their name on the copy of their work or use aliases, and to defend their rights in the event of distortion, mutilation, modification over their works, or any other matter which is detrimental to their dignity or reputation.

The new Copyrights Law extends the protection of economic rights from 50 to 70 years after the creator passes away.

3.    No More Sold Flat

The new Copyrights Law provides creators with new protections for economic rights with regard to sold flat. For the works which copyrights have been transferred in sold flat or without any time limitation, the copyright is to be returned to its creators when 25 years has passed since the transfer. This provision will apply two years after the new Copyrights Law takes effect.

4.    Store Managers must be Aware of Infringement

The new Copyrights Law imposes a criminal sanction of up to a hundred million Rupiah on managers of stores which infringe copyright and/or related rights, regardless of whether the managers were aware of the infringement(s). This provision is quite progressive as it extends criminal sanctions beyond the actual copyright offender to those responsible for managing stores in which copyright and/or related rights are infringed. This places store managers with the burden of ensuring that they thoroughly monitor activities in their stores.

5.    Transfer of Copyrights

Law No. 19/2002 provides that copyright is transferrable through inheritance, grant, will, contract or other causes permitted by law. Under the new Copyrights Law, copyright may now be transferred by means of wakaf – this is the act of granting part or all of the property owned as a form of worship and welfare of the society. The new Copyrights Law further states that transferrable copyrights are limited only to economical rights, while moral rights remain attached to the creators.

6.    Securitization of Copyrights

The new Copyrights Law provides copyright as an intangible moveable object which can be the object of fiducia security, while Law No. 19/2002 only provides copyright as an intangible moveable object.

7.    Removal of Unlawful Works

The new Copyrights Law authorizes the Minister of Law and Human Rights to remove works which violate the norms, public order, national defense and security of the country, as well as applicable laws and regulations.

8.    Collective Management Institution

The new Copyrights Law confirms the Collective Management Institution (Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif/LMK) in Indonesia as a channel for the collection of royalties. The new Copyrights Law obliges creators, copyright holders, and related rights owners, to be a member of LMK in order to collect appropriate royalties from users who use copyright and related rights through commercial public services.

9.    Dispute Resolution and Penal Mechanism

The new Copyrights Law offers more options for dispute resolution processes. Disputes can be resolved through mediation, arbitration or court proceeding.

Criminal processes apply only if there is a complaint from the victim or other parties as stipulated in the laws and regulations.

On 16 September 2014, the House of People’s Representatives ratified Law No. 28 of 2014 on Copyrights Law (“New Copyrights Law”) to replace Law No. 19 of 2002 on Copyrights (“Law No. 19/2002”).

Those in the creative industries, in particular, are positive about the new Copyrights Law providing greater legal certainty in protecting creations. The government, on the other hand, hopes the new Copyrights Law will enable the creative industries to contribute more to the nation’s economy.

The new Copyrights Law is more comprehensive and straightforward than Law No. 19/2002. It provides clarity on a number of copyrights issues which Law No. 19/2002 is silent on and has 48 more articles than Law No. 19/2002 (which has 78 articles).

The key features of the new Copyrights Law are as follows:

1.    New Concept and Definitions

The new Copyrights Law introduces new terminologies and provides new and clearer definitions compared to Law No. 19 of 2002.

For example, the new Copyrights Law recognises that the existence of copyright protection is conditional upon whether the work is in a tangible form. This is consistent with the ‘fixation’ concept under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. However, the scope of fixation under the new Copyrights Law covers only “the recording of sound, images or both, that is visible, audible, duplicable, or communicated through any devices,” in relation to performances and phonograms instead of the object of copyright as a whole.

2.    Extension of Copyrights Duration

The new Copyrights Law reaffirms that copyright consists of both moral and economic rights.

Under the new Copyrights Law, creators have timeless protection in regard to their moral rights to put their name on the copy of their work or use aliases, and to defend their rights in the event of distortion, mutilation, modification over their works, or any other matter which is detrimental to their dignity or reputation.

The new Copyrights Law extends the protection of economic rights from 50 to 70 years after the creator passes away.

3.    No More Sold Flat

The new Copyrights Law provides creators with new protections for economic rights with regard to sold flat. For the works which copyrights have been transferred in sold flat or without any time limitation, the copyright is to be returned to its creators when 25 years has passed since the transfer. This provision will apply two years after the new Copyrights Law takes effect.

4.    Store Managers must be Aware of Infringement

The new Copyrights Law imposes a criminal sanction of up to a hundred million Rupiah on managers of stores which infringe copyright and/or related rights, regardless of whether the managers were aware of the infringement(s). This provision is quite progressive as it extends criminal sanctions beyond the actual copyright offender to those responsible for managing stores in which copyright and/or related rights are infringed. This places store managers with the burden of ensuring that they thoroughly monitor activities in their stores.

5.    Transfer of Copyrights

Law No. 19/2002 provides that copyright is transferrable through inheritance, grant, will, contract or other causes permitted by law. Under the new Copyrights Law, copyright may now be transferred by means of wakaf – this is the act of granting part or all of the property owned as a form of worship and welfare of the society. The new Copyrights Law further states that transferrable copyrights are limited only to economical rights, while moral rights remain attached to the creators.

6.    Securitization of Copyrights

The new Copyrights Law provides copyright as an intangible moveable object which can be the object of fiducia security, while Law No. 19/2002 only provides copyright as an intangible moveable object.

7.    Removal of Unlawful Works

The new Copyrights Law authorizes the Minister of Law and Human Rights to remove works which violate the norms, public order, national defense and security of the country, as well as applicable laws and regulations.

8.    Collective Management Institution

The new Copyrights Law confirms the Collective Management Institution (Lembaga Manajemen Kolektif/LMK) in Indonesia as a channel for the collection of royalties. The new Copyrights Law obliges creators, copyright holders, and related rights owners, to be a member of LMK in order to collect appropriate royalties from users who use copyright and related rights through commercial public services.

9.    Dispute Resolution and Penal Mechanism

The new Copyrights Law offers more options for dispute resolution processes. Disputes can be resolved through mediation, arbitration or court proceeding.

Criminal processes apply only if there is a complaint from the victim or other parties as stipulated in the laws and regulations.

On 17 October 2014, Law No. 40 of 2014 on Insurance (“new Insurance Law”) was enacted to replace the over 20 years old Law No. 2 of 1992 on Insurance Business (“Law 2/1992”).

The new Insurance Law clarifies several provisions of Law 2/1992 and also provides new provisions.

Foreign Ownership
Article 7 of the new Insurance Law states that insurance companies can only be owned by:
•    Indonesian citizens or entities which are directly or indirectly wholly owned by Indonesian citizens, or
•    Indonesian citizens or Indonesian entities together with foreign citizens or foreign entities. Such foreign entity must be an insurance company.

There is no change to the maximum percentage of foreign ownership in insurance business under the new Insurance Law. It remains at up to 80% as stipulated under Government Regulation No. 39 of 2008 on Second Amendment of Government Regulation No. 73 of 1992 on Implementation of Insurance Business.

However, according to the new Insurance Law, foreign citizens or foreign entities may only own an insurance company through a transaction in the stock exchange. This clarifies the provisions under Law 2/1992 which did not clearly state that an insurance company may be owned by foreign citizens or entities and did not provide information on details of ownership.

The new Insurance Law sets a deadline of five (5) years after enactment for existing insurance companies with foreign ownership to make the necessary ownership adjustments.

Mutual Fund Companies
Law 2/1992 required insurance companies to be in the form of a limited liability company, cooperative or mutual fund company. Under Article 7 paragraph 3 of Law 2/1992, insurance companies in the form of the mutual fund companies were to be further regulated under a law. However, the law was never been passed.

In addition to limited liability companies and cooperatives, the new Insurance Law recognizes existing mutual fund companies. The new Insurance Law will acknowledge such existing mutual fund companies as legal entities.

New Key Provisions
Below are some new noteworthy provisions introduced under the new Insurance Law.

1.    Syariah concept
The new Insurance Law provides basic regulatory basis for syariah insurance business, which previously not regulated under Law 2/1992 and only been regulated under government and Ministry of Finance regulations.

Wherein pursuant to Article 87, insurance companies must separate the syariah insurance business unit into syariah insurance company or syariah reinsurance company:
(i)    where the syariah funds exceed 50% of all insurance funds held; or
(ii)   ten (10) years after the enactment of the new Insurance Law in cases where the syariah funds do not exceed 50% of all insurance funds held.

2.    The controlling shareholders
Article 16 of the new Insurance Law provides that a party can only be a controlling shareholder in one life insurance company, one general insurance company, one reinsurance company, one syariah life insurance company, one syariah general insurance company, and one syariah reinsurance company. This requirement is not applicable to the government.

3.    Appointment of a controller
Insurance companies should appoint at least one (1) controller, i.e. individual or business entity which has direct or indirect control to determine the directors or commissioners and/or influence the Board of Directors (“BOD”), Board of Commissioners (“BOC”), or other person equivalent to the BOD or BOC in their actions.

4.    Deactivation of BOD and/or BOC
The Financial Services Authority (Otoritas Jasa Keuangan – “OJK”) is authorized to deactivate the BOD, BOC, or other person equivalent to the BOD or BOC, and to appoint a statutory manager to take over the management of insurance companies. Deactivation is possible under the circumstances stipulated under Article 62 paragraph 1 of the new Insurance Law (e.g. In the case where the insurance company is imposed with a sanction of business activity restriction; according to OJK’s judgment, the insurance company may be unable to fulfill the obligation or may stop the fulfillment of any obligation that is due. Therefore the OJK may deactivate the BOD and/or BOC and appoint a statutory manager).

5.    Protection for policyholders
Insurance companies are required to be members of a policy guarantee program. The implementation of the policy guarantee program is to be further stipulated under a law which will be formed within three (3) years following the new Insurance Law.

Prior to the enactment of such law, insurance companies are required to have security funds (funds that constitute a guarantee of last resort to protect the policyholders in cases where an insurance company is liquidated). The amount and size of the security funds will be determined by OJK.

6.    Obligation to be a member of mediation body
Insurance companies are obliged to be members of an independent and impartial mediation body to settle disputes which arise between them and their policyholders, insured parties and other participants, or any parties which are entitled to receive insurance benefits. The consensus under this mediation is final and binding upon the parties.

The new Insurance Law offers more comprehensive provisions compared to Law 2/1992, as well as stricter supervision by OJK. The key, as always is whether the new Insurance Law can be effectively implemented.

***

Welcome for the Second Edition of  the  Budidjaja & Associates (B&A) Newsletter 2014!

What an exciting year 2014 has been for Indonesia so far.  The biggest highlights  include  the elections in April for national, regional, provincial and regency legislatures, as well as the election in July of Joko Widodo (“Jokowi”) as the next President of the Republic of Indonesia. The fact that the elections were held without any real issues demonstrated that democracy is alive and well in Indonesia. This is a clear indication that the future of business in Indonesia is bright and progressive.

As we complete the first semester of the year, we are proud to tell you that B&A becomes the first and only Indonesian Law Firm Member of TAGLaw, an International Alliance of Independent Law Firm. In July, B&A accepted an invitation to join TAGLaw which reflects the strong international reputation that B&A holds as a provider of high quality legal services.  As the only Indonesian law firm in TAGLaw, we and our clients are now able to access local legal services in over 80 countries across the world.

Now more than ever, B&A prides itself on being a full service law firm with the experience and ability to fulfill a client’s business needs. As we work towards our 8th anniversary, B&A will continue to explore new ways of becoming a superior law firm. As evidence of B&A’s increased prominence in the legal and business world, the firm has been honored by being mentioned and highlighted in a number of prestigious international legal surveys including: Benchmark Asia Pacific, Global 100, IFLR 1000, and Who’s Who Legal.

Taking this opportunity, we are proud to announce that effective July 1, 2014, Ms. Juni Dani assumed the position of Principal at B&A.   With more than 10 years of experience in the legal arena, Juni is the key contact person  at  B&A for corporate mergers and acquisitions, shipping, foreign direct investment and joint ventures, and industrial relations / employment matters.

Her experience includes advising numerous domestic and international investors on business structures for a variety of investments and joint venture projects. We do hope that you enjoy reading this Newsletter as much as much as we enjoyed putting it together for your benefit.  You will find stories on some recent events we were     involved in, information on upcoming events, and some general news about the firm. We also have some articles on recent developments of Indonesia law which we hope you will find them interesting and valuable.

In closing, let us invite you to provide feedback on this and our future Newsletters.  We are always looking at ways of improving our Newsletters, and your views would be most welcome.

We at B&A extend to you our warmest greetings and wish you continued success.

Tony Budidjaja
Managing Principal

Greetings from Budidjaja & Associates Lawyers!

We are pleased to share the December 2014 – January 2015 Edition E-Newsletter  with you in our ongoing effort to keep you informed of the latest Budidjaja & Associates Lawyers. This newsletter covers our latest internal developments, recent and upcoming events, as well as several interesting legal articles and regulation updates.

(The e-newsletter can be accessed at https://app.box.com/s/75uomp4sa0vlte6d5v9c) 

B&A Principal, Tony Budidjaja, wrote the Indonesian chapter of The Asia-Pacific Arbitration Review 2015 edition published by Global Arbitration Review.  The chapter can be found (please click here to see the full article and download).  Mr Budidjaja is an accredited mediator and arbitrator in Indonesia and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (FCIArb).  He sits on the panel of approved mediators and arbitrators of domestic and international dispute resolution institutions such as the Kuala Lumpur Regional Centre for Arbitration (KLRCA).

The information below is obtained from the Discussion and Harmonization on Policy of Capital Investment Service held by BKPM on 9 September 2014 at Hotel Century Park.

From 1 October 2014, every company under the authority of the Capital Investment Coordinating Board (Badan Koordinasi Penanaman Modal – “BKPM”) is required to upload its company data onto the SPIPISE.

SPIPISE (Information Service and Investment Licensing Based on Electronic System/Sistem Pelayanan Informasi dan Perizinan Investasi Secara Elektronik) is operated by BKPM to enable integrated, on-line services.

The objective of this policy is to improve the ease of doing business in Indonesia by simplifying licensing and non-licensing applications for companies.  BKPM’s goal is for every licensing or non-licensing application in BKPM to be processed through SPIPISE by 2016.

The system also aims to reduce or eliminate the risk of losing original company documents which are required to be produced to BKPM when applying for a license outside the SPIPISE system.  Under the SPIPISE, the company is able to upload scanned copies of its data.

Company information which is required to be uploaded onto the SPIPISE are among others:
1.    company deeds, their amendments and approvals;
2.    company taxpayer number;
3.    letter of domicile;
4.    company registration certificate;
5.    latest capital investment activities report and its receipt of submission; and
6.    licenses from relevant ministries.

A company will hold the right to access its account / folder under the SPIPISE system through its legal consultant or an authorised proxy.  The company may share the username and password of the account to the consultant or proxy for use when applying to BKPM for a license.  The company may also change its password if it engages a new consultant.

Company data which is uploaded onto the SPIPISE system will be BKPM’s primary source of information for providing licensing and non-licensing services to the company.

A company obtains the following benefits by creating a company account / folder:
1.    no need to file papers with BKPM;
2.    more efficiencies;
3.    automatic verification of the completeness of required documents if the company applies for licenses or

non-licenses; and
4.    the centralization of company’s data.

BKPM is urging companies to create their accounts / folders as soon as possible.  Companies which do not upload their data by 1 October 2014 will be sanctioned by BKPM not processing their licensing and non-licensing applications.  We doubt the sanction will be imposed from 2 October 2014, as BKPM only announced this new policy in September 2014.  Nonetheless, we support this new development and encourage all companies to create an account / folder on the SPIPISE system.

***

For further information, please contact:
Juni Dani
Principal
[email protected]

Diana Kusumasari
Associate
[email protected]

The expansion of international trade has led to the growing number of cross-border disputes. To help address issues relating to the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents on parties in situ in another jurisdiction, some states signed up to the Hague Convention 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Indonesia, however, is not a party to the Convention nor to any other convention relating to the service of foreign process (other than a bilateral agreement with Thailand). There is also no national legislation regulating the matter in the country.

On 19 February 2013, amid the increasing number of requests for judicial assistance in civil matters between foreign and Indonesian courts, the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (“MOFA”) and the Indonesian Supreme Court (“SC”) introduced Memorandum of Understanding No. 162/PAN/HK.00/II/2013 No. NK/HI/01/02/2013/58 (the “MoU”). The MoU provides guidelines for the handling of a letter rogatory, as well as guidelines for requests for assistance for service of documents in civil proceedings. The guidelines are summarized below.

1.    LETTER ROGATORY

The MoU defines a letter rogatory as a formal letter from a foreign court to an Indonesian court and vice versa, requesting assistance in civil matters relating (but not limited) to the location or identification of persons, assets or properties, the obtaining of witness testimony, the obtaining of documents or other evidence, and the implementation of civil process.

Procedure

The MoU provides that:

• 1.  A letter rogatory from a foreign court must be submitted through a diplomatic representative of the
•      requesting country who is situated in Indonesia.

• 2.  The letter must be in English or the language of the requesting country (accompanied by official
•      translations in English and Bahasa Indonesia).

• 3.  The letter must include information on the following:

• –   the identity of the Court making the request;
• –   the institution which is authorized to receive the outcome of the request;
• –   the government official in Jakarta who is authorized to follow up the request;
• –   the names and addresses of the disputing parties and their proxies (the plaintiff(s) and the
•     defendant(s));
• –   an explanation of the dispute;
• –   the nature of any search/inspection required to be undertaken;
• –   the names and addresses of any witness to be called and examined;
• –   the questions to be addressed and matters to be explained by any witness;
• –   the documents or objects to be examined;
• –   the requirements for any witness to give testimony under oath or ordinary queries and, if
•     needed, the enunciation of the spoken oath;
• –   details which will enable the assistance requested to be performed (e.g. in the case of service
•     of summons
•     against a person/company, the name and address of the person/company to be served with
•     the summons and the date by which the summons is to be served), as well as the details (e.g. the name
•     and address) of the (local) institution or official required to perform the assistance requested;
• –   the details of any taxes and fees to be reasonably refunded; and
• –   the date of the request.

• 4.  The letter must be signed by a duly authorized representative of the requesting court and affixed with
•      the court’s stamp.

A letter rogatory that meets the above requirements will be sent by MOFA to the SC within seven (7) working days of receipt. The SC will assign the authorized court to effect the letter rogatory. The SC will report the implementation of the letter rogatory to MOFA which will then convey this information to the diplomatic representative of the requesting country.

The above procedures and requirements also apply mutatis mutandis for any letter rogatory from Indonesian courts.

2.    REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR THE SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL MATTERS

The MoU also provides guidelines for the service of civil claims documents, court summons for civil proceedings, court summons for witnesses, court decisions or decrees, letters, deeds, and other documents relating to civil matters, from foreign courts on Indonesian citizens and/or Indonesian entities residing in Indonesia, and vice versa.

MOFA will forward to the SC for action, any request from a foreign court to assist with the service of documents. Once service is completed, the SC will send the receipt of service to MOFA which will then pass it on to the diplomatic representative in Indonesia of the country where the requesting court sits.

An area where the MoU could provide more clarity is the timeframe for the SC to process letter rogatory and requests for assistance. The MoU suggests that processes are to be detailed under SC regulations. As at the date of this article, these regulations have yet to be issued.

It is noteworthy that the MoU is not law in Indonesia and therefore does not preclude foreign parties from using private services for the service of court documents in Indonesia, to the extent it is allowed under the law of the foreign parties’ jurisdiction.

****
For further information, please contact: [email protected].

Oleh: Tony Budidjaja, Principal

Sekarang ini banyak liars mengaku lawyers; banyak yang lebih suka menjadi trouble-maker daripada peace-maker; lebih suka menjadi pembela koruptor dan aktris daripada wong cilik.

Undang-Undang Nomor 18 Tahun 2003 tentang Advokat (“UU Advokat”) tidak henti-hentinya digugat efektivitasnya. Tercatat sudah 17 kali UU Advokat diuji materiil di Mahkamah Konstitusi dan saat ini UU Advokat sedang menghadapi legislative review di DPR. Adanya polemik yang begitu besar dari komunitas hukum, khususnya advokat, membuat pembahasan RUU ini berjalan cukup lama di DPR (sekitar 4 tahun).

Kelompok yang mendukung RUU Advokat dan kelompok yang mengharapkan “status quo” bisa dikatakan hampir sama kuat. Kelompok pendukung RUU Advokat dimotori oleh advokat-advokat senior, seperti Adnan Buyung Nasution, Todung Mulya Lubis, Frans Hendra Winarta dan OC Kaligis. Sebaliknya, kelompok yang menentang RUU Advokat diorganisasi oleh Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia (PERADI) dengan dukungan sejumlah LSM.

Maraknya aksi pro-kontra belakangan ini mengingatkan Penulis pada situasi tahun 2003, dimana kala itu UU Advokat tetap disetujui oleh DPR meski mendapat protes dari banyak pihak. Namun demikian, Presiden RI waktu itu (Megawati Soekarnoputri) menolak untuk membubuhkan tanda-tangannya sebagai tanda pengesahan UU Advokat itu.

Menariknya, tokoh-tokoh yang terlibat dalam aksi pro-kontra saat itu (2003) muncul lagi saat ini, namun di posisi yang berbeda. Otto Hasibuan, yang saat itu dengan keras menentang RUU Advokat 2003 sekarang malah menjadi pendukung UU Advokat. Di pihak lain, Adnan Buyung Nasution,yang saat itu ditunjuk menjadi Wakil Ketua Tim Perumus dan juga anggota Konsultan Ahli RUU Advokat 2003, sekarang justru menjadi penentang UU Advokat.

Polemik yang Terjadi
Kelompok pendukung RUU Advokat meyakini bahwa peran serta pemerintah melalui pembentukan Dewan Advokat Nasional (“DAN”) diperlukan untuk mengakomodasi kepentingan semua advokat dan menjadi pintu masuk bagi pembentukan profesi advokat yang profesional, mandiri, dan bertanggung jawab. Kelompok ini menganggap bahwa konsep wadah tunggal advokat sebagaimana diamanatkan oleh UU Advokat bertentangan dengan hak berserikat advokat.

Sementara itu, kelompok yang menuntut status quo menganggap konsep DAN yang termuat dalam Pasal 43 RUU Advokat akan melemahkan independensi advokat. Menurut kelompok ini, apabila RUU ini disahkan, maka posisi advokat akan berada di bawah kendali pemerintah. Selain itu, sistem “multi-bar” yang dianut oleh RUU ini akan membuka peluang munculnya advokat-advokat nakal karena sulitnya pengawasan dan penindakan terhadap mereka.

Apabila RUU ini disahkan, maka akan ada lebih dari satu organisasi advokat yang diakui di Indonesia, dan setiap advokat akan diperbolehkan menentukan sendiri organisasi pilihannya. Salah satu ketentuan di dalam RUU Advokat yang menjadi sorotan adalah ketentuan yang memperbolehkan setiap organisasi advokat (yang diakui) untuk menyelenggarakan pendidikan khusus profesi advokat dan mengangkat advokat. Menurut kelompok pendukung RUU Advokat, hal ini diperlukan untuk menghindari praktik monopoli dan penyalahgunaan wewenang, sementara menurut kelompok penentang RUU Advokat hal ini berpotensi mengganggu standardisasi profesi advokat yang ingin dicapai.

Daripada memperdebatkan apakah wadah tunggal lebih baik dibandingkan multi bar, menurut Penulis yang lebih penting untuk dipikirkan adalah apa sebenarnya hal yang menghambat upaya pencapaian tujuan pokok pembuatan UU Advokat itu sendiri, yakni meningkatkan kualitas profesi advokat Indonesia. Saat ini yang benar-benar dibutuhkan oleh advokat Indonesia adalah peningkatan kompetensi, termasuk kompetensi moral (karakter) dan tanggung-jawab (komitmen) advokat, dan hal ini baru bisa efektif dilakukan melalui pelatihan dan pendampingan (mentoring) agar mereka dapat menguasai keterampilan yang sifatnya teknis.

Metode pendidikan bagi calon advokat harus diubah kepada cara bagaimana belajar (how to learn) dan bagaimana berpikir kritis (how to thinkcritically). Menurut Penulis, pembentukan wadah tunggal ataukah multi bar, termasuk DAN, tidak bisa menjamin keberhasilan selama para advokat tidak mau mengubah cara pikirnya dan perilakunya.

Harapan pembuat UU Advokat untuk membentuk organisasi advokat yang merupakan “satu-satunya wadah profesi advokat” tidak akan pernah bisa terwujud selama para advokat tidak menghargai keragaman dan perbedaan di antara mereka. Selama ini, para advokat Indonesia nampaknya lebih suka berorganisasi dengan rekan-rekannya yang mempunyai kesamaan dengannya, entah itu lingkungan tempat tinggal, hobi, almamater, jenis pekerjaan yang biasa ditangani (misalnya, litigasi atau non-litigasi, perusahaan atau perorangan, publik atau bisnis, dan lain-lain), agama, dan lain-lain.

Sejarah dan fakta saat ini sudah jelas menunjukkan bahwa belum ada satu organisasi advokat pun yang mampu menyatukan seluruh advokat di negeri ini. Meski pada tanggal 8 September 2005 para pemimpin ke-8 organisasi advokat terbesar di Indonesia (saat itu) telah menandatangani Akta Pernyataan Pendirian PERADI, namun pada kenyataannya semua organisasi advokat itu masih tetap berdiri sampai sekarang. Saat ini, beberapa dari ke-8 organisasi advokat itu pun sekarang sudah terbelah menjadi beberapa organisasi sehingga tidak ada orang yang bisa memastikan berapa jumlah organisasi advokat yang eksis saat ini di Indonesia.

Yang harusnya ada dalam setiap negara hukum adalah adanya organisasi advokat yang efektif. Inilah yang menjadi persoalan utama kita. Sayangnya, belum ada satupun organisasi advokat yang benar-benar efektif di negeri ini. Untuk bisa dikatakan efektif, suatu organisasi advokat harus bisa mendapatkan pengakuan dari masyarakat (publik) dan negara.

Advokat Belum Dihormati
Sedihnya, secara umum saat ini profesi advokat masih belum dihormati oleh masyarakat. Masyarakat umumnya menilai banyak advokat yang sudah lupa akan tanggung-jawab profesinya. Sekarang ini banyak liars mengaku lawyers; banyak yang lebih suka menjadi trouble-maker daripada peace-maker; lebih suka menjadi pembela koruptor dan aktris daripada wong cilik. Bahkan, masyarakat pun tahu praktik-praktik kecurangan, pengemplangan utang, dan pelanggaran hukum lainnya yang justru dilakukan oleh advokat. Tidak heran kehadiran advokat sering disepelekan atau justru ditakuti (bukannya dihormati) masyarakat.

Hal ini juga menunjukkan betapa lemahnya fungsi pengawasan yang dijalankan oleh organisasi advokat selama ini. Padahal jelas organisasi advokat dibentuk bukan hanya untuk mengakomodasi kepentingan para anggotanya saja, namun juga untuk kepentingan masyarakat (publik).

Tujuan dibuatnya UU Advokat (2003), sebagaimana disebutkan di dalam UU itu sendiri, adalah untuk menciptakan profesi advokat yang bebas, mandiri, dan bertanggung jawab dalam menegakkan hukum, kebenaran, keadilan, dan hak asasi manusia. Pertanyaannya: setelah lebih dari 11 tahun UU ini berlaku, apakah sudah ada kemajuan yang berarti?

Selama ini banyak anggapan keliru mengenai kemandirian advokat. Kemandirian advokat itu tidak berarti bahwa advokat tidak membutuhkan dukungan negara atau tidak boleh berhubungan dengan pemerintah. Justru pengakuan negara c.q. pemerintah sangat dibutuhkan bagi profesi advokat mengingat profesi ini tidak mempunyai akar sejarah atau budaya yang kuat di Indonesia.

Kemandirian advokat itu harus dilihat dari kesanggupan advokat menjalankan tugasnya secara independen dan objektif, tanpa kontrol atau pengaruh dari pihak luar manapun. Bila advokat itu menggantungkan kelangsungan hidupnya pada pihak lain, maka ia tidak mandiri.

Penulis melihat umumnya advokat Indonesia tidak gampang terpengaruh oleh tekanan dari luar. Tekanan yang sering mengganggu kemandirian advokat selama ini justru datang dari dalam diri advokat itu sendiri (tekanan finansial, popularitas, dan godaan dunia lainnya) dan kliennya. Hal ini diperumit dengan sifat kebanyakan advokat yang cenderung suka memaksakan kehendak, pongah dan suka pujian.

Kemandirian organisasi advokat itu sejatinya diukur dari keberanian organisasi advokat itu untuk mendisplinkan anggotanya yang nakal. Profesi advokat selama ini sudah banyak dirugikan oleh ulah sebagian advokat yang menyalahgunakan kebebasan dan kemandiriannya tanpa tanggung-jawab. Karena advokat yang baik hampir tidak pernah diekspos di Indonesia, persepsi masyarakat dan pemerintah tentang kemandirian dan integritas advokat menjadi semakin buruk, bahkan bisa dikatakan sudah kritis.

Peran serta dan tanggung jawab organisasi advokat seharusnya diukur dari kepeduliannya atas isu-isu sosial yang berkembang di masyarakat. Masyarakat mendambakan organisasi advokat Indonesia bisa meniru organisasi advokat di negara-negara tetangga seperti Malaysia, Srilanka, Pakistan, India, yang berani “turun ke jalan” untuk menentang pelanggaran supremasi hukum oleh penguasa atau melawan kebijakan pemerintah yang tidak adil.

Organisasi Advokat yang Kuat
Sebenarnya, tidak efektifnya UU Advokat selama ini adalah karena belum adanya satu organisasi advokat yang kuat, dan organisasi advokat tidak akan kuat bila para advokat tidak mau bersatu.

Sebelum UU Advokat 2003 diundangkan sebenarnya hal ini sudah diperingatkan. UU Advokat 2003 memberikan wewenang (power) yang begitu besar bagi “wadah tunggal advokat” (yang saat itu belum ada), dan di saat yang bersamaan, tenggat waktu yang begitu sempit untuk membentuk “wadah tunggal advokat” tersebut. Bisa diibaratkan seperti seorang ibu yang dipaksa untuk melahirkan bayi yang harus mampu mengemudikan pesawat tempur.

Oleh UU Advokat (2003), wewenang mengatur advokat “from the cradle to the grave”, termasuk menyelenggarakan pendidikan, ujian, pemagangan, pengangkatan, pengawasan, penindakan hingga pemecatan, yang sebelumnya dipegang oleh dua lembaga (Menteri Kehakiman dan Mahkamah Agung) secara tiba-tiba dilimpahkan kepada “wadah tunggal advokat” (single bar association), yang mana sebenarnya “blueprint”-nya pun masih belum ada saat itu. Padahal, legitimasi dan keberhasilan proses pembentukan organisasi baru itu jelas bergantung pada persetujuan seluruh advokat (tanpa kecuali) yang akan menjadi anggotanya, visi-misi organisasi itu, serta kemampuan kepemimpinan para pengurusnya.

Kemelut profesi advokat seharusnya tidak perlu terjadi seandainya DPR waktu itu tanggap dan mengatur dengan jelas apa yang dimaksud dengan “Organisasi Advokat” yang merupakan “satu-satunya wadah profesi advokat”, beserta dengan mekanisme pembentukannya [vide Pasal 28 juncto Pasal 32 (4) UU Advokat]. “Loophole” yang diciptakan oleh anggota DPR waktu itulah yang sekarang menjadi akar penyebab konflik yang berkepanjangan di antara para advokat saat ini. Oleh karena inisiatif untuk membentuk “wadah tunggal” waktu itu bukan datang “dari bawah” (mengingat banyak kalangan advokat yang menentang saat itu), namun bisa dikatakan “paksaan DPR”, maka DPR-lah yang sekarang harus bertanggung-jawab atas kekisruhan yang sekarang terjadi.

Sebenarnya, bila mau, DPR dapat menggunakan kesempatan ini untuk menjadi mediator bagi mereka yang berseteru. DPR dapat meminta kesepakatan mereka untuk membentuk tim “caretaker” yang akan bertugas mendampingi dan membantu para pengurus seluruh organisasi advokat yang ada untuk secara bersama-sama menyelenggarakan musyawarah akbar seluruh advokat Indonesia. Tentu saja susunan anggota dan wewenang tim ini harus disepakati bersama. Pada prinsipnya, biarkanlah para advokat bergumul dan menyelesaikan persoalan mereka tanpa intervensi pihak-pihak lain. Apabila kesepakatan bersama para advokat Indonesia berhasil tercapai, maka itu bisa menjadi solusi cepat dan sederhana untuk menyelesaikan perdebatan mengenai makna “wadah tunggal advokat” dan mengatasi krisis profesi advokat yang sudah berkepanjangan ini.

Penutup
Yang dibutuhkan oleh advokat saat ini adalah pemulihan harkat dan martabatnya, dan hal itu tidak mungkin dilakukan sendirian melainkan harus bersama-sama. Para advokat khususnya pengurus organisasi advokat harus menyadari bahwa tanpa dukungan masyarakat dan pemerintah, mereka tidak akan pernah bisa mewujudkan profesi advokat (dan dengan sendirinya organisasi advokat) yang kuat.

UU Advokat memang belum sempurna, tetapi kita tidak boleh mengulangi kesalahan yang sama. Tidak ada gunanya dibuat UU baru kalau UU itu juga tidak akan dapat dilaksanakan dengan baik. Lagipula, harus diakui bahwa substansi RUU Advokat saat ini masih mengandung sejumlah kelemahan dan potensi masalah. Selain itu, RUU Advokat juga masih belum menjawab berbagai persoalan modern yang sekarang dihadapi oleh profesi advokat di Indonesia, seperti kewajiban pelaporan pelanggaran (whistle blowing) danpembatasan area praktik advokat dan kantor hukum asing.

Disetujui atau tidaknya RUU Advokat tidak akan menyelesaikan masalah yang melanda profesi advokat Indonesia saat ini. Demikian pula, seandainya pun RUU Advokat ini ditunda pembahasannya, masalah ini akan tetap ada dan justru akan semakin rumit. Masalah yang sesungguhnya dan yang harus segera diselesaikan adalah masalah “manusia”-nya. Kearifan para advokat untuk menanggalkan egonya untuk kemudian bersatu dan bekerja-sama sangat dibutuhkan.

*Ketua Perhimpunan Profesi Hukum Kristiani Indonesia (Indonesian Christian Legal Society) dan anggota Law Management Committee – LAWASIA. Namun, tulisan ini adalah pendapat pribadi.

****
For further information, please contact: [email protected].

The Supreme Court of Indonesia recently published Decision No. 54 P/HUM/2013 (the “SC Decision”) nullifying the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation that required the creditor/bankruptcy petitioner to pay all of the receiver’s fee in cases where the bankruptcy petition is dismissed in cassation or civil review (peninjauan kembali) proceedings. The Supreme Court stated that the Minister’s Regulation contradicted the Bankruptcy Law provision which allows judges to determine the sharing of payment of the receiver’s fee between the creditor/bankruptcy petitioner and a debtor.

Under Indonesian law, the receiver’s fee is regulated under Law No. 37 of 2004 regarding Bankruptcy and Suspension of Obligation of Payment of Debt (“Law 37/2004”). It is further elaborated under the Minister of Law and Human Rights Regulation No. 1 of 2013 regarding the Guidance on Receiver and Administrator Fees (“Regulation 1/2013”).

Article 17 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law 37/2004 states that the panel of Supreme Court judges who dismiss a bankruptcy petition determines whether the receiver’s fee is to be borne by the bankruptcy petitioner or between the bankruptcy petitioner and the debtor. Article 2 paragraph (1) (c) of Regulation 1/2013, which the SC Decision nullified, had stated that Petitioner was to bear responsibility for the receiver’s fee. (Note that the SC Decision only nullifies Article 2 paragraph 1 (c) and does not affect the remaining provisions of Regulation 1/2013.)

The SC Decision has drawn positive reactions particularly from business people, receivers and qntlistrators. It is understood that the provision of Article 2 paragraph (1) (c) of Regulation 1/2013 had discouraged bankruptcy actions against (uncooperative) debtor(s) because of the potentially onerous costs the Petitioners had to bear in cases where the bankruptcy petition fails. Many also argued that Article 2 paragraph (1) (c) was in fact a double punishment for Petitioners who had earlier been financially harmed by the debtor.

Pending a revision to Regulation 1/2013, it is expected that Supreme Court judges will give serious consideration to Article 17 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law 37/2004 in cases where the bankruptcy petition is dismissed.

RECEIVER FEE

Regulation 1/2013 provides guidelines for calculating the receiver’s fee for each of the three possible bankruptcy proceedings outcomes, namely: (i) the parties approve the settlement plan; (ii) the liquidation of the debtor’s assets; and (iii) the annulment of bankruptcy (in the cassation or civil request (peninjauan kembali) stage).

Under scenario (i) and (ii), the receiver’s fee is calculated from the amount of the total debtor’s assets minus total debts by using the following progressive rate:

For scenario (iii), the receiver’s fee is determined by the judges who are required to consider the work performed by the receiver, the complexity of the work, the capability of the receiver, and the receiver’s tariff. Regulation 1/2013, however, does not provide an explanation of “the receiver’s tariff”.

OTHER FEES

The receiver may receive other fees arising from the sale of a debtor’s assets in the possession of other creditors or third parties whose right to enforce security is stayed. In these cases, the fee is set at a maximum of 2.5% of the sale of the assets. Other additional fees could also be agreed at the creditors meeting and are to be paid out of the debtor’s assets.

TEMPORARY RECEIVER FEE

The fee payable to a temporary receiver appointed under Law 37/2004 is also subject to Regulation 1/2013. If the bankruptcy petition is granted, the fee is to be determined at the first creditors meeting. If the petition is dismissed, the judges will use their discretion to determine the fee after considering the work performed by the receiver, the complexity of the work, the capability of the receiver, and the receiver’s tariff.

Under Law 37/2004, a temporary receiver is one appointed before the judges render their decision on a bankruptcy petition. The temporary receiver supervises the management of the debtor’s business, payments to creditors, and the transfer and encumbrance of the debtor’s assets which fall under the authority of a receiver appointed under bankruptcy proceedings.

ADMINISTRATOR FEE

Regulation 1/2013 states that when the suspension of payment proceedings concludes in a settlement, the qntlistrator’s fee is to be determined by judges after considering the work performed by the qntlistrator, the complexity of the work, the capability of the qntlistrator, and the qntlistrator’s tariff. The fee is to be paid by the debtor. The fee is set at a maximum of 10% of the debtor’s total debt. A higher rate of up to 15% may be applied if the suspension of payment proceedings ends by way of the liquidation of assets.

Regulation 1/2013 states that if an additional receiver or qntlistrator is required, the relevant fee is to be determined by a creditors meeting.

****
For further information, please contact: [email protected].

The expansion of international trade has led to the growing number of cross-border disputes. To help address issues relating to the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents on parties in situ in another jurisdiction, some states signed up to the Hague Convention 1965 on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters. Indonesia, however, is not a party to the Convention nor to any other convention relating to the service of foreign process (other than a bilateral agreement with Thailand). There is also no national legislation regulating the matter in the country.

On 19 February 2013, amid the increasing number of requests for judicial assistance in civil matters between foreign and Indonesian courts, the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (“MOFA”) and the Indonesian Supreme Court (“SC”) introduced Memorandum of Understanding No. 162/PAN/HK.00/II/2013 No. NK/HI/01/02/2013/58 (the “MoU”). The MoU provides guidelines for the handling of a letter rogatory, as well as guidelines for requests for assistance for service of documents in civil proceedings. The guidelines are summarized below.

1.    LETTER ROGATORY

The MoU defines a letter rogatory as a formal letter from a foreign court to an Indonesian court and vice versa, requesting assistance in civil matters relating (but not limited) to the location or identification of persons, assets or properties, the obtaining of witness testimony, the obtaining of documents or other evidence, and the implementation of civil process.

 Procedure

 The MoU provides that:

• 1.  A letter rogatory from a foreign court must be submitted through a diplomatic representative of the   
•      requesting country who is situated in Indonesia.

• 2.  The letter must be in English or the language of the requesting country (accompanied by official
•      translations in English and Bahasa Indonesia).

• 3.  The letter must include information on the following:

• –   the identity of the Court making the request;
• –   the institution which is authorized to receive the outcome of the request;
• –   the government official in Jakarta who is authorized to follow up the request;
• –   the names and addresses of the disputing parties and their proxies (the plaintiff(s) and the 
•     defendant(s));
• –   an explanation of the dispute;
• –   the nature of any search/inspection required to be undertaken;
• –   the names and addresses of any witness to be called and examined;
• –   the questions to be addressed and matters to be explained by any witness;
• –   the documents or objects to be examined;
• –   the requirements for any witness to give testimony under oath or ordinary queries and, if
•     needed, the enunciation of the spoken oath;
• –   details which will enable the assistance requested to be performed (e.g. in the case of service
•     of summons
•     against a person/company, the name and address of the person/company to be served with
•     the summons and the date by which the summons is to be served), as well as the details (e.g. the name
•     and address) of the (local) institution or official required to perform the assistance requested;
• –   the details of any taxes and fees to be reasonably refunded; and
• –   the date of the request.
•  

• 4.  The letter must be signed by a duly authorized representative of the requesting court and affixed with
•      the court’s stamp.

A letter rogatory that meets the above requirements will be sent by MOFA to the SC within seven (7) working days of receipt. The SC will assign the authorized court to effect the letter rogatory. The SC will report the implementation of the letter rogatory to MOFA which will then convey this information to the diplomatic representative of the requesting country.

The above procedures and requirements also apply mutatis mutandis for any letter rogatory from Indonesian courts.

2.    REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR THE SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS IN CIVIL MATTERS

The MoU also provides guidelines for the service of civil claims documents, court summons for civil proceedings, court summons for witnesses, court decisions or decrees, letters, deeds, and other documents relating to civil matters, from foreign courts on Indonesian citizens and/or Indonesian entities residing in Indonesia, and vice versa.

MOFA will forward to the SC for action, any request from a foreign court to assist with the service of documents. Once service is completed, the SC will send the receipt of service to MOFA which will then pass it on to the diplomatic representative in Indonesia of the country where the requesting court sits.

An area where the MoU could provide more clarity is the timeframe for the SC to process letter rogatory and requests for assistance. The MoU suggests that processes are to be detailed under SC regulations. As at the date of this article, these regulations have yet to be issued.

It is noteworthy that the MoU is not law in Indonesia and therefore does not preclude foreign parties from using private services for the service of court documents in Indonesia, to the extent it is allowed under the law of the foreign parties’ jurisdiction.

****
For further information, please contact: [email protected].