Pengunduran Diri dari Partai Gerindra

Dengan berat hati, terhitung 11 Januari 2018, saya mengundurkan diri dari keanggotaan dan kepengurusan Partai Gerindra.

Di bawah ini adalah surat pengunduran diri yang telah diterima DPP Partai Gerindra tanggal 11 Januari 2018.

FCIArb Certificate and Views on LL.M Description in Indonesia

After 5 years, I now re-activate my blog although I do not know whether I can consistently writing posts in the future.

Anyway, I have just received the CIArb original Certificate of Membership identifying that I am now a Fellow, therefore I am entitled to use the designatory letters FCIArb.

It came up to my mind few minutes ago that I think it is time to share my view about the letters LL.M, a symbol for postgraduate law students. Since 9 years ago, I have been verbally sharing the following view to friend, but time allows me to write it down just now.

Research shows that LL.M is a Latin abbreviation of Legum Magister which means Master of Laws in English. The LL is actually a way to write down a shorten plural word in Latin, in this case LL represents the abbreviation of Legum.

It is unfortunate that for years Indonesia has been adopting the phrase Lex Legibus Magister to show a complete name of a person holding LL.M degree. This unofficial descriptions is somehow exist for years in public documents such as notarial deed. There has been no indication that other countries adopt the same. Although it may seem unimportant, I view that such mistake can create legal issue in the future e.g. someone tries to invalidate a document on the basis that such document incorrectly describes a person's identity. This example maybe hypothetical, but it could happen.

Therefore, practitioners awareness and exposure are required so this inaccurate description of LL.M abbreviation in Indonesia can be avoided in the future.

Christie Alliance Law Practice Expansion of Legal Service: FIDIC Conditions of Contract

Christie Alliance Law Practice has been advising domestic and foreign clients in Indonesia. We are upgrading our legal service to providing advice on FIDIC Conditions of Contract.

In construction industry, FIDIC Conditions of Contract is a well known terms for employers, engineers and contractors. Indonesia is a developing country which projects such as oil & gas, infrastructure, etc are widely executed along the archipelago. Some development banks require FIDIC Conditions of Contract implemented in the parties' agreement. Many project owners voluntarily include FIDIC Conditions of Contract in their bidding documents.

Through this latest expansion of legal service, we are prepared to review your contract documents under FIDIC Conditons of Contract, and ready to become counsel in arbitration or dispute resolution process.

Mediation Tips (31 August 2007)

As mediation, especially in Indonesia, has become a pre requisite before courts start the proceeding, there are several tips for mediators to make it succesful.

In court annexed mediation, the most basic thing to do if you have a pre-mediation meeting with both parties on seperate location, try to ask them if there is a willing inside them to reach a settlement.

If no, there is a slight chance for a good result. If there is, at least from one of them, then you can ask the affirmed one what is their lowest position in maintaining the disputed issues.

I do not suggest you to inform this to the opponent, however, you can always softly pressurise the opposing one that if they do not have a settlement option, then the judges might think that the peace-willing one is the one to be in favour of. Once it has been soften, than you can continue to remind the first to slowly recommend his/her lowest position.

Negotiation Tips (28 August 2007)

My personal experiences say that the best way to represent a disputant as his/her/its negotiator is to have them explain honestly what is the underlying factor which makes the argument persists. Sometimes the actual background of the existing dispute is not quite clear so as their negotiator we have to face a shocking fact from the other disputant that our client has done something that has not been explained to us.

Talk to them directly heart to heart and try to reveal the hidden agenda.

The Need of a Good Negotiator

Questions sometimes arise to what extent a good lawyer can be a good business dispute negotiator. Lawyering, especially in litigation field, needs an extra energy to something called "attacking mechanism". This is based on the purpose of litigating itself, that is to win the battle.

Nonetheless, prior to going to court, a business dispute could have been settled amicably. This step involves a very traditional method of alternative dispute resolution: Negotiating.

In this phase, the main goal of the conversation is to reach a mutual understanding which leads to an agreement. It has been proven that a succesful negotiation of a business dispute often brings good fortune for the disputant as their relationship remains in green level.

The question is: Can a professional and experienced litigator become a good business dispute negotatior?

Court battles not the only way to settle business disputes

(The Jakarta Post, 23 May 2007)

Maralda H. Kairupan, Jakarta

A lot of attention is being paid in Indonesia at the moment to how business dispute resolution processes can be improved. This attention has arisen from the growing complexity of modern commercial society and the laws that govern it.

The present groundswell of interest shows the need for business dispute resolution mechanisms to keep pace with the times. This interest is largely the product of the ongoing concern of business and law practitioners, academics and governments that disputes be resolved through effective means, for the benefit of the disputants and society at large.

Traditional court settlements, the litigation process, cannot always meet contemporary dispute resolution requirements in a timely, cost-effective and satisfying way. With the increase in litigation costs and court congestion, business entities are increasingly turning to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to resolve their disputes.

While ADR denotes a variety of techniques to resolve disputes outside the courtroom, the following methods typically fall under the label ADR: negotiation, mediation, conciliation and arbitration. Although each of these ADR methods has its own characteristics, they generally enable parties to resolve disputes in a confidential setting, among other things. They also help to establish deadlines and procedural rules governing the proceedings, select presiding officials and neutral parties and maintain ongoing business and personal relationships.

The government has already issued Law No. 30/ 1999 concerning Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (the Arbitration Law). This law is meant to stimulate disputants to settle their disputes through ADR institutions such as the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI), leaving aside the litigation process.

On top of this, the Supreme Court issued a 2002 ruling concerning court-annexed mediation procedures, in order to solve courts' huge case backlog. This led to the establishment of mediation institutions such as the Indonesian Mediation Center (PMN) and the Indonesian Institute for Conflict Transformation (IICT).

The Arbitration Law mentions some forms of ADR. Although the law does not provide clear definitions of each form, a study of the literature can clear up what most of them are.

Negotiation is the most common ADR method, and is, by definition, voluntary and non-binding. Negotiation is generally conducted by the involved parties, and sometimes their attorneys as well. While negotiation generally does not involve the intervention of third-party presiding officials, independent third-parties can aid settlement negotiation by helping participants focus on what caused the dispute and how it can be remedied, rather than assigning blame.

Mediation is a non-binding structured process in which the mediator helps the participants reach a negotiated settlement. Mediators can use various techniques to help the parties reach a settlement, but they do not have the power to reach a decision themselves.

Conciliation is similar to mediation, and many people use the two words interchangeably. There is no agreed terminology. But a conciliator does take a more proactive role than a mediator, giving his or her own opinion from time to time and at the end, if no agreement has been reached, indicating how a court would likely decide.

Arbitration entails different views of two different schools: one who says that arbitration is not a form of ADR due its adjudicative nature, and one who says that arbitration is a form of ADR given its out of court nature. For the purpose of this discussion, arbitration will be regarded as a form of ADR.

Arbitration is perhaps the most well-known ADR technique and generally denotes the submission of a dispute to an arbitrator or arbitration tribunal. The end point of the process is a binding resolution after a hearing in which each side presents evidence and arguments with the help of legal counsel. In this way, arbitration differs from mediation and other structured settlement techniques, which are far less adversarial.

There is one other form of ADR which can be efficient: so-called mini trials. Literature studies describe the simplicity of this method.

There is no set definition of a mini trial. A a mini trial involves a structured settlement process in which each side of a dispute presents abbreviated summaries of its cases to the major decision-makers for the parties who have authority to settle the dispute. The summaries contain explicit data about the legal basis and the merits of each case.

The process normally follows more relaxed rules for research and case presentation than might be found in a court and the parties usually agree on a specified limited time period for presentations and arguments. The mini-trial is confidential and is typically scheduled after an opportunity for limited research.

The proceedings consist of each disputant's presentation of a summary of the evidence and testimony that they would produce at a trial, as well as arguments by counsel.

A neutral party or a judge supervises each mini-trial. That individual is responsible for explaining and maintaining an orderly process of case presentation and may give an advisory opinion regarding settlements. That last role they perform if asked, rather than automatically offering detailed solutions for the parties to consider. The third party may also provide mediation services upon request.

The rationale behind mini trials is the assumption that if decision-makers are fully informed about the merits of their cases and that of the opposing parties, they will be better prepared to successfully engage in settlement discussions.

By involving disputants early on, mini trials promote settlements and have the added advantage of preserving business relationships that would otherwise be weakened by litigation. Furthermore, if a settlement is reached, mini trials also reduce litigation costs.

Clearly, courtroom settlements in Indonesia are being avoided by modern commercial society because of the judicial system's failure to fulfill the need to resolve disputes in a timely, cost-effective and satisfying way. On top of this of course are also concerns about corruption and the operation of the so-called "judicial mafia" in the nation's courts.

Disputants can expect a more positive result going through ADR than through regular courts. Establishing more ADR institutions would be an excellent move to support businesses in settling disagreements.

Mini trials are regarded as being effective in a number of ways. However, there are as yet no laws concerning the application of mini trials in Indonesia, nor has there been the establishment of mini trial institutions.

The writer is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. He can be contacted at maralda.kairupan@googlemail.com.