1 
   
 
Changes for Justice (C4J) Mid‐Term Evaluation: Is
USAID’s support for justice sector reform aligned and
responsive to the reform agendas and needs of its GOI
partner institutions?
Garry Ledbetter
Sole Evaluator, USAID/Regional Development Mission for Asia, Senior
Rule of Law and Governance Advisor  
March 2012   
Disclaimer:  
The authors’ views do not necessarily reflect the views of the United
States Agency for International Development or the United States
Government.
2 
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Glossary……………………………………………………………. 3
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………….... 4
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….. 7
Scope and Methodology………………………………………………………….. 10
Analysis...………………………………………………………………………………… 11
1. Are C4J activities aligned with the Supreme Court’s Reform Agenda?....... 11
2. Are C4J activities supportive of AGO’s reform agenda?............................. 16
3. Are C4J activities supportive of the GOI national  
initiative to expand access to justice?....................................................... 19
4. What is C4J providing that is integral to the success of  
its partner GOI institutions’ reform agendas and that  
would be severely compromised in the absence of this  
USAID support?........................................................................................ 21
5. Given other current and planned donor assistance to the
Supreme Court and AGO, is continued C4J support to these institutions
nevertheless critical?................................................................................ 21
6. Negative impact on sustainability should the project be
terminated or reduced prior to its scheduled May 2014 completion
date……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 23
7. Recommendations ………………………………………………………………………………… 24
Annex 1: Scope of Work………………………………………………………….. 27
Annex 2: List of documents for review……………………………………… 29
Annex 3: Matrix of Results………………………………………………………. 30
Annex 4: Interview Schedule ………………………………………………….. 31
3 
ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY  
AGO       Attorney General’s Office  
AusAid     Australian Government Overseas Aid Program  
Bappenas     National Development Planning Agency  
Blueprint   Blueprint for Justice Reform 2010‐2035, Supreme Court  
C4J       Changes for Justice project  
CJE       Continuing judicial education  
CMS       Case management system  
COP       Chief‐of‐party  
CTS Case Tracking System being supported by C4J
GOI Government of Indonesia
IT       Information technology  
JRT Judicial Reform Team
M&E       Monitoring and evaluation  
MCC       Millennium Challenge Corporation  
NGO       Non‐governmental organization  
PMP       Performance monitoring plan  
RFP       Request for proposal  
SC       Supreme Court  
SOP       Standard operating procedures  
SOW       Scope of work  
STTA       Short‐term technical assistance  
WB     World Bank
4 
Executive Summary
This paper is a mid‐term program evaluation of the Changes for Justice (C4J) Project
to determine if USAID’s support for justice sector reform is aligned and responsive to
the reform agendas and needs of its GOI partner institutions.   The paper will also
examine if USAID support is integral and critical to the SC and AGO’s efforts to
reform as well as examine the effects of any unexpected decrease in funding for C4J
prior to its scheduled closure date.
The C4J is a 19 million dollar four‐year project focused on sustaining and deepening
reforms in the Indonesian justice sector to produce a less corrupt, a more
accountable and more highly performing justice system. This goal will be achieved
through more efficient, credible, and transparent functioning of the Supreme Court
(Component 1) and the Attorney General’s Office (Component 2), including
increasing the competence and integrity of judges, prosecutors and staff. Integral to
meeting these goals, Component 3 is designed to meet special initiatives of the US
government (USG) to further strengthen the reform process in the Indonesian justice
sector.1
C4J alignment with the reform agendas of the SC and AGO
The SC and AGO reforms are guided by the GOI Bureaucracy Reform Agenda which
began in 2006 in order improve legal certainty and reduce state financial leaks;
increase investment; and increase state revenue.  Building upon the general GOI
reforms, the SC has created and is guided by the Blueprint for Justice Reform 2010‐
2035 and the reform of the AGO is guided by the AGO’s Bureaucracy Reform Agenda
2008.   
Supreme Court
The SC, under the “one roof” policy developed through a series of laws, now serves
as the top management in administration, personnel, finance, and infrastructure of
four courts (General, Specialized, Religious and Military/Administrative).  The new
Blueprint sets forth the vision of the judicial body which is creating the Indonesian
Judicial Court of Excellence. The SC’s Mission hopes to achieve this new vision by
maintaining independence; providing legal service that is just for justice seekers;
strengthening the leadership quality; and improving credibility and transparency.2
  
The implementation for the Vision and Mission of the SC is carried out through the
following Directives: Directives on Reform of Technical Functions & Case
Management; Directives on Reform of Supporting Functions; and Directives on
Accountability Reform.3
 
1 Changes for Justice Project Year 1 and Year 2 Workplans, Executive Summary 2 Blueprint Justice Reform 2010‐2035Pages 11‐12, Chapter III, Section B. Mission of Judicial Body 3 Blueprint Justice Reform 2010‐2035,Pages 18‐53, Chapter IV‐VI
5 
The C4J project allocates 65‐70% of USAID funding to activities with the SC.  Project
activities are developed in cooperation with the SC as set forth in a Decision of the
Chief Justice4 and are implemented through Working Groups that are a component
of the JRT established in 2010 by a Chief Justice Decree.5
   Once C4J and the SC agree
on the activities to be implemented in the coming year that are aligned with the
Blueprint, the workplan is submitted to Bappenas for approval.  After the workplan is
approved, project implementation is conducted with working groups from the JRT.  
The Working Groups that coordinate with C4J are: Human Resources and Budgeting,
Public Access to Information, Case Management/Access to Justice, Case
Management/Information Technology, and Education and Training.
After conducting key informant interviews and reviewing the Blueprint and relevant
project documentation, it is the conclusion of the evaluator that the activities of C4J
are aligned with the Blueprint of the SC.  Activities that are in line include developing
a case tracking system, training court personnel on how to implement such a system,
building the capacity of the training center and restructuring of the human resources
department.  During key informant interviews at the SC, all Working Groups
confirmed that C4J activities are aligned with the SC reform agenda.  In fact, all
working groups expressed an interest in expanding cooperation with C4J.
Although C4J activities are in line with the SC reform Agenda, there are some
challenges such as negotiating to get project approval with multiple competing
interests within the SC that were created under the “one roof” policy, building the
capacity of the SC in light of a random rotation policy that moves reformers from
pilot projects, and ensuring the C4J CTS is the only case management system used by
the General Courts in light of a competing system being operated in a few courts.
Attorney General’ Office
The AGO’s 2008 Bureaucracy Reform Vision is “to achieve an AGO that is
professional and that has integrity according to the AGO’s supreme values to assure
legal certainty to create good governance by 2025.”6
  The AGO’s Bureaucracy Reform
Mission is to: 1. Establish and/or complete laws and regulations as a legal basis for
the AGO’s good governance; 2. Modernize the AGO’s bureaucracy by optimizing the
use of information and communication technology; 3. Develop a positive culture,
work values, and behavior of the AGO staff; 4. Restructure the AGO organization
(institutional); 5. Relocate and improve the quality of human resources, including a
revised remuneration system; 6. Simplify the work system, procedures and
mechanisms; and 7. Develop an effective supervision mechanism.7
  Under the
 
4 Decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Number:
143/KMA/SK/VIII/2010, Concerning the Implementation Directives for Foreign Donors operation in the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Indonesia 5 Decree of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Republic of Indonesia, Number: 116/KMA/SK/VI/2010 Concerning
the establishment of Judicial Reform Team
6 AGO Bureaucracy Reform 2008, Chapter 1, Section E. Vision, Mission, Purpose and Goal of the AGO’s
Bureaucracy Reform, Vision, Subpart 1. Mission of the AGO’s Bureaucracy Reform, paragraph AGO’s Bureaucracy
Reform Vision 7 Ibid.
6 
reform agenda, there are two phases of reform at the AGO.  The first phase focuses
on quick wins that develop and use new technology to become more transparent
and increase public trust in the AGO.  The second phase is focused more on
restructuring of the AGO to improve business processes.  Although the AGO is not as
far advanced into its reforms as the SC, and has less experience working with
international donors, the AGO follows the same approval process as the SC for its
annual workplans.  
After conducting key informant interviews and reviewing the relevant  
documentation, it is the conclusion of the evaluator that the activities of C4J are  
aligned with the reforms of the AGO.  Activities that are in line include training  
prosecutors on freedom of information laws, developing competency models for  
officials at AGO headquarters, and assisting with building a curriculum at the training  
center.  During key informant interviews at the AGO, all Working groups confirmed  
that C4J activities are aligned with the AGO reform agenda and requested additional  
cooperation with C4J.
Although C4J activities are in line with the AGO reform Agenda, there are some  
challenges such as the rotation policy of the AGO where prosecutors are rotated  
every two years and some trainees never use the skills or knowledge obtained from  
C4J events, and occasionally, communication has been an issue.
C4J Support Integral and Critical
Given C4J activities are in line with the reform agendas of the SC and AGO, C4J is
providing support that is integral to the SC and AGO.  For example, C4J’s assistance
and support to the SC is integral to developing a case management system,
automating the courts and providing training to those who will be working with the
new systems.  These activities are creating a more open judiciary and would not be
currently moving forward at the SC without C4J support.  As for the assistance to the
AGO, access to international best practices through experts and the ability to include
personnel from remote prosecutors’ offices in trainings are integral to the success of
its reforms.  
  
Additionally, assistance to the Supreme Court and AGO is coordinated through  
Bappenas and ongoing discussions among the various donors such as USAID, WB, EU  
and AusAid. As a result, there appears to be no current duplication of activities and  
each donor has carved out its own niche in providing assistance to the GOI. Given  
this scenario, USAID support is currently critical to the Supreme Court and AGO.   
That being said, it is only critical until other donor funding can replace USAID support  
or the GOI can allocate sufficient funds from its budget to cover the gap left by  
USAID.   
Furthermore, in general, C4J activities will be negatively impacted should USAID
reduce funding to C4J or terminate the program before its scheduled completion
date without sufficient planning.  The degree of impact will depend on the specific
project, but the larger projects will be hit the hardest, such as IT.  Given the GOI as
7 
already established its budget for 2012 and is in the process of developing its 2013
budget, programming may cease for up to two years if other funding sources cannot
be found to cover an abrupt closeout by USAID.   
Recommendations
Since C4J activities are in line with the reform agendas of the SC and AGO, the  
evaluator’s recommendations focus on resource allocation and efforts to improve  
sustainability of project activities.  These recommendations include changing  
indicators to better track the results of training for the SC and AGO, focusing on  
building the capacity of the training centers at the SC and AGO to counter the  
rotation policies of the GOI institutions, obtain commitment from the new Chief  
Justice of the SC to issue a decree to confirm the C4J CTS is the only system to be  
used by the general courts for case management, and a phased close out of the  
project that avoids any abrupt closure of project activities should USAID Indonesia  
no longer be able to fund C4J.  
Introduction  
The SC and AGO reforms are guided by the GOI Bureaucracy Reform Agenda which
was developed in 2006 with the following main goals: improve legal certainty and
reduce state financial leaks; increase investment; and increase state revenue.  
Building upon the general GOI reforms8
, the Supreme Court has created and is
guided by the Blueprint for Justice Reform 2010‐2035 while the reform of the AGO is
guided by the AGO’s Bureaucracy Reform Agenda 2008.   
Supreme Court
The SC, under the “one roof” policy developed through a series of laws, now serves
as the top management in administration, personnel, finance, and infrastructure of
four courts (General, Specialized, Religious and Military/Administrative).  
9 Prior to
the “one roof” policy, each court was a component of separate Ministry which
provided management.  Once the “one roof” policy was adopted, it meant a
dramatic shift in how the courts would operate and greatly increased the
management burden on the SC.  As a result, there was and still is a need for reform
of the SC to implement the policy.
 
8 The reforms are set out in the following: Minister of State Apparatus Empowerment (Men Pan) Decree No.
15//M.Pan/7/2088, on Bureaucracy Reform General Guidelines; Republic of Indonesia Presidential Decree No. 81
of 2010, on Bureaucracy Reform Grand Design, 2010‐2025; and Minister of State Apparatus Empowerment and
Bureaucracy Reform Decree No. 20 of 2010, on Bureaucracy Roadmap, 2010‐2014. 9 Blueprint Justice Reform 2010‐2035, Page 4, Chapter I, Section A. Background and Context of Reform,
specifically: “SC’s responsibility as the consequence of one roof policy as stated in Law No.35 Year 1999 on
Amendment to Law No.14 Year 1970 on Principle Provisions of Judiciary, and which was revised by Law No.4 Year
2004, which was then revised again by Law No.48 Year 2009 on Judicial Power. The justification is also stated in
various laws, such as in: Law No.5 Year 2004 juncto Law No.3 Year 2009 on Supreme Court, Law No.8 Year 2004
juncto Law No.46 Year 2009 on General Justice, Law No.9 Year 2004 juncto Law No.51 Year 2009 on State
Administration Court and Law No.50 Year 2009 on Religious Court.”
8 
The SC reforms began with a Blueprint for Justice Reform in 2003. The SC
implemented a variety of programs from 2005‐2009 focused on restructuring the
organization, reducing the case backlog, establishing an education center, improving
its recruiting system, and promoting information transparency.  These efforts were
only partially successful and in 2010 the SC adopted a new Blueprint for Justice
Reform 2010‐2035.   
The new Blueprint sets forth the vision of the judicial body formulated by the
Chairman of Supreme Court on 10 September 2009 which is “CREATING THE
INDONESIAN JUDICIAL COURT OF EXCELLENCE which … can be established as a
Judicial Court that: 1. Implements the function of judicial power independently,
effectively and justly; 2. Is independently supported with performance‐based budget
management which is allocated proportionally in the State Budget; 3. Has a proper
organizational structure as well as organizational management that is clear and
measurable; 4. Implements the management and administration of case processes
that are simple, fast, punctual, cheap and proportional; 5. Manages means and
infrastructure for the purpose of supporting a work environment that is safe,
comfortable, and conducive for the implementation of judicial functions; 6. Manages
and develops human resources that are competent by objective criteria in order to
create judicial personnel that are integrated and professional; 7. Is supported with
effective supervision …; 8. Is oriented towards quality public service; 9. Maintains
information management that guarantees accountability, credibility, and
transparency; and 10. Is modern on the basis of integrated Information Technology
(IT).”10  
The Missions of the SC have been formulated for the purpose of achieving the vision
of an Indonesian Judicial Court of Excellence. The Missions of the Judicial Body 2010
– 2035 are:  
  
1. Maintaining independence of the judicial body;  
2. Providing legal service that is just for justice seekers;  
3. Strengthening the leadership quality of the judicial body; and
4. Improving the credibility and transparency of the judicial body.11
The implementation for the Vision and Missions of the SC is carried out through the
following Directives: Directives on Reform of Technical Functions & Case
Management; Directives on Reform of Supporting Functions; and Directives on
Accountability Reform.12 Each one of these Directives establishes specific reform
areas such as human resources, case management, information technology,
improving access to courts, reform of education and training, and budget and asset
management.  These Directives establish the parameters for cooperation with C4J.
 
10 Ibid., Page 11, Chapter III, Section A. Vision of Judicial Body 11 Ibid., Pages 11‐12, Chapter III, Section B. Mission of Judicial Body 12 Ibid., Pages 18‐53, Chapter IV‐VI
9 
Attorney General’s Office
Bureaucracy reform in the AGO was originally launched on July 22, 2005, and
resulted in a set of regulations that were adopted by the AGO in July 2007.  These
regulations called for reforms in recruitment, education and training, minimum
standards of the attorney profession, career development, code of ethics, and
supervision.  Building upon these regulations, the AGO adopted the Bureaucracy
Reform Program in 2008 which is now the document guiding the reform of the
AGO.13     
The AGO’s 2008 Bureaucracy Reform Vision is “to achieve an AGO that is
professional and that has integrity according to the AGO’s supreme values, Satya
Adhi Wicaksana’s (Great Loyalty to Justice), to assure legal certainty to create good
governance by 2025.”14  The AGO’s Bureaucracy Reform Mission is to: 1. Establish
and/or complete laws and regulations as a legal basis for the AGO’s good
governance; 2. Modernize the AGO’s bureaucracy by optimizing the use of
information and communication technology; 3. Develop a positive culture, work
values, and behavior of the AGO staff; 4. Restructure the AGO organization
(institutional); 5. Relocate and improve the quality of human resources, including a
revised remuneration system; 6. Simplify the work system, procedures and
mechanisms; and 7. Develop an effective supervision mechanism.15   
In general, the AGO’s bureaucratic reform goals are to change the mindset and
culture, as well as its management system. In particular, the goals cover several
aspects, such as:
1. Organizational, by establishing an AGO organization with the right functions and
the right size.
2. Organizational culture, by establishing an AGO bureaucracy that is professional
and has higher performance.  
3. Procedure, by establishing a clear, effective, efficient, measurable system,
processes and procedures in accordance with good governance principles.  
4. Regulation and deregulation, by establishing an AGO bureaucracy that follows
regulations and deregulation in order to avoid overlap and that is conducive to
reform.
5. Human resources, by establishing an AGO human resources system that has
integrity and is competent, professional, high performing, prosperous, and well‐
respected.16
 
13 There are other documents that have been developed such as AGO Quick Wins 2009, AGO Reformation Blue
Print 2010 – 2015, and the AGO Strategic Plan 2010‐2014 – Strengthening the implementation of Bureaucracy
Reform, but these documents were not made available in English. 14 AGO Bureaucracy Reform 2008, Chapter 1, Section E. Vision, Mission, Purpose and Goal of the AGO’s
Bureaucracy Reform, Vision and Subpart 1. Mission of the AGO’s Bureaucracy Reform, paragraph AGO’s
Bureaucracy Reform Vision 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid., Subpart 3. The Goals of AGO’s Bureaucracy Reform  
10 
The first phase of AGO’s Reform includes quick wins to initiate bureaucratic reforms
to rebuild public trust in the AGO.  The selected programs are those that are key to
leveraging improvements in the core business of the institution. The hope is that the
changes from the quick wins program can be easily seen, and the benefit can be
directly sensed by justice seekers.17
The Second Phase of AGO Reform will focus on organization restructuring;
procedural restructuring; restructuring of the human resources management
system; strengthening of organizational units; development of rules and regulations;
internal supervision; and change management.
Changes for Justice (C4J)
The C4J project was awarded to Chemonics in May 2010 and its primary objective is
to improve the performance of Indonesia’s justice system.18  The project is intended
to produce the following two results:
 More efficient, credible, accountable and transparent functioning of the
Supreme Court and Attorney General’s Office.  
 Increased competence and integrity of judges, prosecutors and staff.19   
“The C4J is a four‐year project focused on sustaining and deepening reforms in the
Indonesian justice sector to produce a less corrupt, a more accountable and more
highly performing justice system. This goal will be achieved through more efficient,
credible, and transparent functioning of the Supreme Court (Component 1) and the
Attorney General’s Office (Component 2), including increasing the competence and
integrity of judges, prosecutors and staff. Integral to meeting these goals,
Component 3 is designed to meet special initiatives of the US government (USG) to
further strengthen the reform process in the Indonesian justice sector.”20Component
3 was added to the C4J project to implement activities with additional funding
remaining from a prior MCC project.  C4J began implementing activities in October
2010 after a lengthy start‐up period.  
Scope and Methodology  
As set forth in the SOW in Annex 1, USAID Indonesia is keen to ensure that its
investments in support for justice sector reform are aligned with and responsive to
the reform agendas and needs of its GOI partner institutions – the Supreme Court
and Office of the Attorney General, as well as the overall reform agenda of the GOI.  
For purposes of USAID Indonesia’s future planning, the goal of this evaluation is to
determine the extent to which these institutions view C4J as integral to their current
 
17 Ibid., Chapter IV Quick Wins 18 USAID Contract DFD‐I‐00‐08‐00070‐00, Order No. 2, Page 9,Section C, paragraph C.3 Objective 19 Ibid., at paragraph C.5.2 Overview and Project Approach 20 Changes for Justice Project Year 1 and Year 2 Workplans, Executive Summary
11 
operations and future plans, as well as how responsive they feel the project’s
activities have been to institutional needs that they cannot meet on their own.  
Specifically, the valuation is meant to answer the following questions:
  
1. Are C4J activities aligned with the Supreme Court’s December 2010 Blue Print
for Reform 2010‐2035?
2. Are C4J activities supportive of the GOI national initiative to expand access to
justice?
3. Are C4J activities supportive of AGO’s reform agenda?
4. What is C4J providing that is integral to the success of its partner GOI
institutions’ reform agendas and that would not be happening, or would be
severely compromised, in the absence of this USAID support?
5. Given other current and planned donor assistance to the Supreme Court and
AGO, is continued C4J support to these institutions nevertheless critical?
6. Will the sustainability of C4J activities carried out to‐date be negatively
impacted should the project be terminated or reduced prior to its scheduled
May 2014 completion date?
7. Recommendations on continued USAID Indonesia support to the Supreme
Court and AGO (changes, additions, omissions).
The evaluation was conducted March 12‐22, 2012 in Jakarta Indonesia.  The
methodology employed by the evaluation was to review project documentation and
interview key informants and stakeholders in order to get a diverse perspective.  
Interviews included multiple representatives from the Supreme Court, Attorney
General’s Office, Bappenas, and bilateral/ multilateral donors (see Annex 4).  The
USAID Mission in Indonesia and Chemonics were also helpful in providing additional
information as well as the necessary documents for review (See Annex 2).   
Analysis  
The following is a discussion of the findings of the evaluation as they relate to each
question from the SOW.
Are C4J activities aligned with the Supreme Court’s December 2010
Blue Print for Reform 2010‐2035?
The C4J project allocates 65‐70% of USAID funding to activities with the SC.  Project
activities are developed in cooperation with the SC as set forth in a Decision of the
Chief Justice21 of the SC and are implemented through Working Groups that are a
component of the JRT established in 2010 by a Chief Justice of the SC Decree.22   
Once C4J and the SC agree on the activities to be implemented in the coming year
 
21 Decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, Number:
143/KMA/SK/VIII/2010, Concerning the Implementation Directives for Foreign Donors operation in the Supreme
Court of the Republic of Indonesia 22 Decree of the Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Republic of Indonesia, Number: 116/KMA/SK/VI/2010
Concerning the establishment of Judicial Reform Team
12 
that are aligned with the Blueprint, the workplan is submitted to Bappenas for
approval.  After the workplan is approved, project implementation is conducted with
working groups from the JRT (although some activities will move forward if there are
no objections by Bappenas given it could take months before official approval).  The
working groups that work directly with C4J are Human Resources and Budgeting,
Public Access to Information, Case Management/Access to Justice, Case
Management/Information Technology, and Education and training.
After conducting key informant interviews and reviewing the Blueprint and relevant
project documentation, it is the conclusion of the evaluator that the activities of C4J
are aligned with the Blueprint of the SC.  During key informant interviews at the SC,
all Working groups confirmed that C4J activities are aligned with the SC reform
agenda. An analysis linking C4J activities with the some of the Blueprint Directives is
set forth below.23
Chapter IV, Directives on Reform of Technical Functions and Case Management,
Section A. Directives on Reform of Technical Functions  
This intended reform is defined as efforts to revitalize the SC to maintain legal
consistency and create a judiciary that is affordable to public through efforts that
enable improvement of access to justice. In order to achieve these objectives, the
main programs of the SC are: 1. Limitation of Case Cassation and Legal Review; 2.
Implementation of Chamber System Consistently; 3. Simplification of Case
Processing; and 4. Improving Access to the Court.”24  Examples of C4J activities
aligned with this Directive are as follows:
 C4J implemented a workshop on Implementation of Supreme Court’s Practice
Direction on the Provision of Legal Aid (Surat Edaran Makamah Agung
(SEMA)) no.10/2010 for personnel from 39 courts to improve access to
courts.
 In FY2012‐2013, C4J will conduct additional national and regional workshops
on SEMA to continue to improve access to the courts.
Chapter IV, Directives on Reform of Technical Functions and Case Management,
Section B. Directives on Case Management Reform  
The Directives on Case Management Reform are for the purpose of realizing two
Supreme Court’s Missions: firstly, providing legal services that are certain and just
for justice seekers; and secondly, increasing credibility and transparency of the
judiciary. The agenda for improvement in case management can be divided into
three main parts, as follows: 1. Modernization of case management; 2. Restructuring
of the case management organization; and 3. Restructuring of the case management
process.25 An example of C4J activities aligned with this Directive is:
 
23 See also Annex 3, a matrix created by Chemonics linking activities to Directives from the Blueprint. The
Evaluator did not independently verify some information in the matrix such as the number of participants given
that would have been outside the scope of the evaluation. 24 Blueprint Justice Reform 2010‐2035,Page 18, CHAPTER IV, Section A. Directives on Reform of Technical
Functions
25 Ibid., Page 24, CHAPTER IV, Section B. Directives on Case Management Reform
13 
 C4J implemented a district court‐level course on case flow management and
completed a Court Automation Readiness Survey (CARS) in cooperation from
courts throughout Indonesia.   
Chapter V, Directives on Reform of Supporting Functions, Section F. Directives on
Information Technology Reform  
The “objectives of IT implementation in the SC can be formulated as supporting
means to attain the following: a. Improving the quality of rulings, as in the provision
of access to all information relevant from inside and outside the court, including
rulings, legal journals, and so on; b. Improving the judicial administration system
including access to judicial activities from outside the building, such as: registration,
information inquiry, and witnessing; c. Establishing efficient work processes in the
judicial institution by reducing manual and clerical workload and replacing it with
computer‐based processes; d. Establishing a performance‐based organization by
using technology as a means to conduct supervision and control over performance;
and e. Establishing a learning environment within the organization by providing e‐
learning or distance learning facilities.”26 Examples of C4J activities aligned with this
Directive are as follows:
 C4J provided three Courts with extensive IT Equipment (Palembang,
Bandung, and Samarinda) and four Courts with a Case Tracking System (CTS
Version 1 software at Palembang, Bandung, Samarinda, and Surabaya).  C4J
also trained court personnel on the CTS and proper use of equipment.  
 In FY2012‐2013, C4J will install CTS Version 1 in 5 new courts while training
350 court personnel, provide three Courts with digital audio recording  
equipment and trainings, and develop and install CTS Version 2 in 8‐12 courts
with training for approximately 500 personnel.  
CHAPTER V, Section C. Directives on Reform of Education and Training System
Under this Directive, the Supreme Court will develop a qualified and respectable
Judicial Training Center (JTC). The SC believes that an effective training system will
be realized if the SC focuses development on the following aspects: 1. Institution; 2.
Means and infrastructure required; 3. Human resources; 4. Integrated and
sustainable education and training program; 5. Utilization of education and training
results; 6. Education and training budget, and 7. Other supporting activities (for
example research and development activities).27 Examples of C4J activities aligned
with this Directive are as follows:
 C4J worked with the Education and Training Working Group to create a
training model, syllabus and curricula on the quality of judgments/rulings,
case flow management, and a code of conduct for judges including a training
of trainers.  These activities play a significant role in building the capacity of
the judges by expanding knowledge and improving integrity.  
 C4J held a convention on CJE I focusing on Case flow Management and a pilot
Training of Trainers Convention on CJE focusing on the Quality of Judgments.  
 
26 Ibid., Page 42, CHAPTER V, Section F. Directives on Information Technology Reform 27 Ibid., Page 35, CHAPTER V, Section C. Directives on Reform of Education and Training System
14 
 C4J developed a Master's Degree Program and the first of three semesters
was completed with 20 judges.
Chapter VI, Directives on Accountability Reform, Section B. Directives on Reform of
Information Transparency System
The prioritized measures that will be implemented by the SC under this Directive are:
1. Establishing a culture of transparency in the court; 2. Creating an information
access mechanism that is simple, quick, punctual and cheap; 3. Developing
organizational structure and establishing supporting policies; 4. Creating a
mechanism of supervision and monitoring, complaint and resolution, as well as
incentives and disincentives in the implementation of information service; and 5.
Increasing public awareness of the use and needs for judicial information.  Examples
of C4J activities aligned with this Directive are as follows:
 C4J supported the design, layout and provided equipment for the creation of
three Public Information Desks (Palembang, Bandung, and Samarinda),
trained court personnel on Transparency & Public Information Access and
supported a study tour to Singapore.  C4J also supported a series of Supreme
Court talk shows on TV One with the SC.
 C4J continues to provide technical assistance on SOPs that cover procedures
for media coverage, dissemination of info and how to create and release
articles.
 In FY2012‐2013, C4J will develop guidelines for journalists in understanding
the Indonesian legal system and reporting on the courts.  
Chapter V, Directives on Reform of Supporting Functions, Section B. Directives on
Reform in Human Resources Management   
The SC will develop and implement the Competency‐based HR Management System
(CBHRM).The most important activity in the CBHRM is the preparation of the official
position’s competency profiles. The competency profile will be used as the minimal
requirements for certain official positions and it will be a basis for the development
of a system applied to all HR pillars. Once a system is in place, the following can be
developed: 1. Competency‐based selection and recruitment; 2. Competency‐based
training and development including rotation and promotion; 3. Competency‐based
performance assessment; 4. Competency‐based remuneration; and 5. Competency‐
based career patterns.28  Examples of C4J activities aligned with this Directive are as
follows:
 C4J completed an assessment to set priorities of reform for Human
Resources.  
 In FY2012‐2013, C4J will develop competency profiles for case management,
train staff on competency profiles, obtain SC acceptance of the competency
profile system, and conduct approximately 100 individual assessments.  
 
28 Ibid., Page 32‐33, CHAPTER V, Section B. Directives on Reform in Human Resources Management
15 
Challenges
Although C4J activities are aligned with the Blueprint as discussed above, some
challenges were found during the key informant and donor interviews.
One of the challenges facing C4J is the rotation policy of the SC. 29  There is not a
public version available of this policy and rotations or promotions seem to occur
randomly.  Such a policy creates problems in building the capacity of the judiciary as
those who are trained may not continue in the same role at their next post.  The
rotation policy also creates additional challenges to implementing reforms if a
“reformer” is transferred from a position of influence or decision making and is
replaced by someone who does not share the same vision.  For example, Chemonics
is monitoring the situation at one of its pilot courts in Palembang that is
implementing the new CTS as the Chief Judge of the court has been transferred to
another post.  It is uncertain if his replacement will share the same vision.  There
may also be a larger problem with the CTS in that there is no Decree from the Chief
Justice of the SC confirming that the CTS is to be the case tacking system for the SC.  
The Chief Justice that supported the CTS has been replaced and there is no indication
as of yet if the new Chief Justice will continue the support for CTS.    Given there is a
competing case tracking system being utilized in a few courts that was developed
based upon a successful system installed in the religious courts, this could become a
critical issue for the C4J.  
  
There can be positives; however, to a rotation system if court personnel are
continuing in the same position with similar responsibilities following the transfer.  
They can utilize the skills and knowledge obtained through the prior partnership with
C4J and spread any new techniques or approaches to the new office or court.  This is
true at the Chief Judge level at local and regional courts when a “reformer” moves to
another post and begins replicating successful C4J activities.  It is too early in the C4J
project to determine if such an effect will occur on a consistent basis.
It has been only 8 years since the “one‐roof” policy has consolidated the General
courts, Religious courts, Military courts and the Specialized courts under the
management of the SC.30  Given this recent event, there are still competing interests
and many interested parties within the SC on any given reform measure despite the
creation of the JRT.  As a result, communication can be a barrier to program
implementation if buy‐in is not obtained from all interested parties.  
In terms of creating buy‐in, one criticism of the C4J project was that the project has a
reputation for “forcing” what it would prefer to implement onto its GOI partners
 
29 The Evaluator was unable to determine the official rotation policy of the SC as the policy has not been made
public.
30 Law No. 35 of 1999, on application of One Roof System under Supreme Court, effective September 2004.
16 
instead of creating a workplan that meets the requests of the courts.31  Although this
can be problematic, it should be noted that there are always negotiations to
determine the appropriate activities to be included in any workplan when working
with a government institution or even a non‐governmental organization.  These
negotiations attempt to reconcile the gap between identified needs and the requests
of the target partner.  Hopefully, in the end, a workplan is created that will meet a
reform agenda.  It should be noted that in all meetings, the representatives from the
SC agreed that C4J activities are aligned with the Blueprint and requested additional
cooperation with C4J.
Are C4J activities supportive of AGO’s reform agenda?
The AGO is not as far advanced into its reforms as the SC and has less experience
working with international donors.  Nevertheless, C4J follows the same process in
developing a workplan with the AGO as it does with the SC.  When developing
activities to implement in cooperation with the AGO, C4J has discussions with AGO
leadership and members of the AGO Reform Team (AGO also has a reform team
similar to the SC established by a Decree of the Attorney General).32 Once an
agreement is reached, a workplan is developed and then submitted to Bappenas for
approval.  Once Bappenas approves the workplan, C4J begins implementation of
project activities (although some activities will move forward if there are no
objections by Bappenas given it could take months before official approval) with the
following Working Groups: Public access to Information, Human Resources, and
Education and Training  
The guiding document for negotiations on cooperation is the 2008 AGO
Bureaucracy Reform discussed in the Background section.   Under this guiding  
document, there are two phase of reform at the AGO.  The first phase focuses on  
quick wins that develop and use technology to improve accountability and  
transparency of the AGO.  The second phase focuses more on restructuring of the  
AGO.   
After conducting key informant interviews and reviewing the relevant  
documentation, it is the conclusion of the evaluator that the activities of C4J are  
aligned with the reforms of the AGO. During key informant interviews at the AGO, all  
Working Groups confirmed that C4J activities are aligned with the AGO reform  
agenda. An analysis linking C4J activities to components of the AGO Reform Agenda  
follows.
AGO Bureaucratic Reform Agenda 2008; Phase One: AGO Quick Wins Program   
The quick wins program that is designed to increase public trust to be implemented
by the AGO is as follows: acceleration of case handling to deliver excellent service to
 
31 This issue was raised by the EU, WB, AusAid and Bappenas.  It is worth noting that donors do take different
approaches to building the capacity of government institutions. Some donors focus on the request of target
institutions while others donors will take a mixed approach that blends requests and identified needs. 32 Decree of Attorney General of the Republic of Indonesia Number:KEP‐086/A/J.A/08/2008 Concerning
Establishment of Bureaucracy Reform Team 
17 
the public in relation to law enforcement; application of an information technology
system (online) to manage corruption and other criminal cases (starting from
investigation to execution, tracking the number of corruption cases, restitution of
state loss, the date and amount of transfers to the state treasury, etc.); application
of an information technology system (online) in the management of complaints
relating to attorneys who receive discipline/punishments; and updating of the AGO’s
website so that the public can have access to information on case management and
public complaints.33 Examples of C4J activities aligned with Phase One that focus on
preparing personnel to implement new systems are as follows:34
 Public information managers (who are prosecutors) from district prosecutor
offices in 5 provinces (West Java, South Sumatera, South Sulawesi, East Nusa
Tenggara, and Maluku) received training on handling public information
requests.  
 Heads of district prosecutor offices attended the introductory session of the
training to socialize/disseminate the Freedom of Information Act and the
AGO's Decree on Public Information Services.
 Production of 1000 copies of a compilation of laws and rules on public
information access.
 In FY2012‐2013, C4J will support training on public information requests to
district prosecutors' offices heads and others, will design curriculum for  
training staff on website development; and will provide basic and advanced
technical assistance in journalism for AGO's website administrators.  
 In FY2012‐2013, C4J will continue to disseminate the compilation of laws and
rules to 33 Provincial Prosecutor's Office and 400 District Prosecutor's Office  
 In FY2012‐2013, C4J will support a public speaking training to be provided to
information desk officers at district prosecutors' offices.
AGO Bureaucratic Reform Agenda 2008; Phase Two: Restructuring of the human
resources management system
The activities envisioned by the AGO to restructure the human resources
management system are as follows: 1) Individual competency assessment of
prosecutors and staff/expert staff; 2) Development of a performance evaluation
system; 3) Development of a procurement and selection system;  4) Development of
a research and development system; 5) Strengthening of the rotation, transfer (to
new place), and promotion system; 6) Strengthening of career development; and 7)
Development/strengthening of a personnel database.  Examples of C4J activities
aligned with this component of Phase Two are as follows:
 Personnel Bureau Leadership Forums implemented to provide examples of
best practices on human resource management from other Ministries to
leadership of AGO.  
 
33 AGO Bureaucracy Reform March 2008, Chapter IV Quick Wins 34 See also Annex 3, a matrix created by Chemonics linking activities to Directives from the Blueprint. The
Evaluator did not independently verify some information in the matrix such as the number of participants given
that would have been outside the scope of the evaluation. 
18 
 Developed the Competency Model for Echelon II officials at the AGO
Headquarters.  
 C4J‐supported Competency Model used as the basis for Echelon III Individual
Competency Assessments that were also supported by C4J.  
 C4J‐supported Competency Model was also used in assessments conducted
directly by the AGO.
 In FY2012‐2013, C4J will conduct a workforce analysis and is planning to
develop a system to forecast needs, plan for, and place human resources
more efficiently. C4J will also assist the AGO in developing Talent
Management based on competencies adoption to better match officials' skills
with position requirements.  
 In FY2012‐2013, completion of 10 sessions of the Personnel Bureau
Leadership Forum and support a Human Resources‐Leadership Training and
send staff to a Certified Human Resources Professional Program.
Challenges
Although C4J activities are aligned with the 2008 Bureaucracy Reform Agenda as
discussed above, some challenges were found during the key informant and donor
interviews.  
One of the challenges facing C4J is the rotation policy of the AGO where prosecutors
are rotated, on average, every couple of years.  This policy creates problems in
building the capacity of the AGO as those who are trained may not continue in the
same role at their next post and utilize the skills/knowledge gained through
participating in C4J activities.  The rotation policy also creates additional challenges
to implementing reforms if a “reformer” is transferred from a position of influence
or decision making and is replaced by someone who does not share the same vision
as discussed in the Challenges section of the SC.  The problem is so severe in the
AGO, that AusAid no longer will provide training to staff of the AGO. Even during
meeting with the Public Access to Information Working Group, they concurred that
those attending C4J trainings may never use the skills or knowledge obtained during
some trainings because of the rotation policy.  
As discussed earlier, there are some benefits to a rotation policy if a reformer is able
to effect change at the next posting.  The AGO Human Resources Working Group
also believes that those who are promoted to higher positions need to have
knowledge of all areas so by participating in a range of trainings they will be better
prepared for management positions.  Given the large number of prosecutors and the
small number of potential promotions, this argument does not justify training
numerous AGO personnel that will be constantly rotated to new positions as it is not
possible to determine which prosecutors will be promoted and who then should
receive which type of training.
19 
In the first year of C4J, there were communication issues with the AGO that slowed
down implementation of the project.35  This could be attributed to a lack of
communication internally within the AGO as leadership does not appear to be
always engaging staff at the lower levels when developing activities for the
workplan, common in militarized institutions; some members of the Working Groups
were blocking communications; and C4J, at times, has not been communicating the
ongoing status of activities to all interested parties within the AGO.  For example, a
training on public speaking was part of the C4J Year One Workplan and was to take
place in the fall of 2011.  According to Chemonics, after discussions with the Human
Resources Bureau and Pusenkum, this training was rescheduled for February 2012
but eventually cancelled and replaced by a pilot training that just includes modules
on public speaking scheduled for July 2012.   According to the AGO Public Access to
Information Working Group (original target of the training), they were not informed
of the reason for the cancellation nor did they have an idea if the activity was going
to take place during the remainder of the year.  This case highlights where the AGO
leadership or other Working Groups are not communicating with each other and
Chemonics may not be engaging all levels within the AGO.36
Are C4J activities supportive of the GOI national initiative to expand
access to justice?
The Indonesian National Strategy on Access to Justice was developed by UNDP in
cooperation with Bappenas as part of the Legal Empowerment and Assistance to
Disadvantaged Project (LEAD).  According to a fact sheet describing the project,
“Access to justice in the Indonesian context refers to a condition and process
whereby the State guarantees the fulfillment of citizens’ basic rights afforded by the
1945 Indonesian Constitution as well as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, and guarantees that each citizen (claim holder) is able to acquire the
necessary knowledge, understanding, awareness and ability to exercise those rights
through formal as well as informal institutions, supported by accessible and
responsive public complaints mechanisms, so as to obtain optimal benefits in order
to improve their livelihoods. This definition emphasizes that access to justice aims at
supporting and strengthening the prevention and alleviation of poverty, the
prevention of corruption and the upholding, protecting and fulfilling of human rights
through legal empowerment of the people.
The National Strategy on Access to Justice aims to create a framework for policies
and regulations that are inclusive of poor and marginalized people and afford them
access to justice so that they can utilize their resources to overcome poverty. It
covers eight sectors, including: (1) legal and judicial reform; (2) legal aid; (3) local
governance; (4) land and natural resources; (5) women; (6) children; (7) labor; and
(8) poor and disadvantaged groups.”
Additionally, according to the fact sheet, the relevant policy recommendations for
legal and judicial reform include strengthening the reform agenda for justice
 
35 Interviews with Pak Feri, Chemonics, donors, and Bappenas. 36 It was also the opinion of Bappenas that C4J needs to engage all levels in discussion; not just the leadership.
20 
institutions, including supervisory commissions, to improve professionalism and
ethics in the police, public prosecutors and courts.  As part of the project, detailed
action plans were to be developed by justice sector institutions.  However, at the
time of this report, no such action plans had been developed for the SC and AGO.37  
Thus, the National Initiative has only been included in the Main National
Development Targets of the National Medium‐Term Development Plan (RPJMN) of
2010‐2014 and is only implicitly included in the development targets such as “that
attained atmosphere of justice through enforcement of the rule of law and the
maintenance of public law and order.”  Although there is a lack of criteria and clear
details of the specific access to justice goals in legal and judicial reform, C4J activities
are and have contributed to improving access to justice in Indonesia.   
Supreme Court
The C4J activities being implemented in cooperation with the SC are supportive of
access to justice in Indonesia.  For example, the support for a case management
system (equipment, software and training) is building transparency and
accountability by making information available to the public on current cases and
activities of the courts in pilot regions.  The automation of the courts is improving
the time it takes a case to move through the system thereby providing quicker
justice to citizens seeking redress through the courts.  C4J also held a workshop on
Implementation of Supreme Court’s Practice Direction on the Provision of Legal Aid
for 39 courts and is increasing the competency of judges through training that will
give the judiciary the necessary tools to adjudicate cases effectively and
competently.
Attorney General’s Office  
The C4J activities being implemented in cooperation with the AGO are contributing
to improving access to justice in Indonesia.  C4J is building the capacity of the AGO to
better respond to citizen requests for information through the following activities:
training for public information managers from district prosecutor offices in 5
provinces on handling public information requests; training heads of district
prosecutor offices to socialize/disseminate the Freedom of Information Act and the
AGO's Decree on Public Information Services; producing 1000 copies of a
compilation of laws and rules on public information access; training on public
information requests to district prosecutors' offices heads and others; designing
curriculum for  training staff on website development; and providing basic and
advanced technical assistance in journalism for AGO's website administrators. All of
these activities should improve transparency and accountability of the AGO which
should lead to greater access to justice for citizens of Indonesia.
 
37 According to USAID Indonesia, no action plans have been developed, and neither the AGO or SC made mention
of such a plan.
21 
What is C4J providing that is integral to the success of its partner GOI
institutions’ reform agendas and that would not be happening, or
would be severely compromised, in the absence of this USAID support?
C4J is providing support that is integral to the reform agendas of the SC and AGO.  
For example, C4J’s assistance and support to the SC is integral to developing a case
management system, automating the courts and providing training to those who will
be working with the new systems.  Without this support, the progress on case
management will be severely delayed if not come to a halt for a one to two year
period until other donor funding can be located or the SC allocates funding from its
own budget. Such a delay would not only hamper the shift from a manual system to
an automated system but a gap in funding could create an opening for a competing
system that is being implemented in a few courts.  A delay also could slow any
momentum in changing the culture of the SC to being a more open and transparent
body.
Additionally, C4J programing on reforming human resources is a catalyst and is
accelerating reforms by providing access to international best practices through
experts that the SC cannot afford under its current budget.  Also, the assistance to
the Access to Information Working Group from the JRT is improving the quality and
expanding the reach of the trainings to more SC staff to expedite socialization of
reforms. Thus, without C4J support, the reform of human resources would slow and
the quality of reforms may suffer without exposure to international best practices.
Finally, C4J’s ability to provide international best practices is integral to the success
of AGO reforms.  To date, C4J has only assisted the Public Access to Information
Working Group to conduct trainings in 4 of its 31 prosecutors’ offices.  The AGO may
not be able to find the funding to bring international experts to Indonesia and invite
personnel from all remaining 27 offices, especially more remote offices, in the short
term as the AGO does not have access to the same level of donor funding as the SC.   
In the long term, the AGO was not confident if funds would be available from its own
budget to ensure quality and depth of trainings for personnel at all 31 prosecutors’
offices. Thus, if USAID would discontinue funding under C4J for the AGO, the quality
and depth of trainings would suffer thereby slowing the pace of reform. However,
the strategy for providing international best practices should take into account the
challenges presented by the AGO rotation policy.  
  
Given other current and planned donor assistance to the Supreme
Court and AGO, is continued C4J support to these institutions
nevertheless critical?
Donor assistance to the SC and AGO is coordinated through Bappenas and  
ongoing discussions among the various donors such as USAID, WB, EU and AusAid.  
As a result, there appears to be no current duplication of activities and each donor  
has carved out its own niche in providing assistance to the GOI. Given this scenario,  
22 
USAID support is currently critical to the SC and critical in some areas to the AGO.   
Supreme Court
C4J is currently critical to the SC’s effort at reforming the judiciary.  C4J is providing
integral support as just discussed to develop a case management system, automate
the courts and providing training to those who will be working with the new systems.   
The SC is already operating under its 2012 budget and is in the process of planning
for 2013.  As a result, the SC would not be able to allocate funding to replace USAID
assistance until the 2014 budget.  Although the SC will be able to carry out basic
activities, such as training, there would not be funding to continue to replicate the
C4J CTS in other courts.   
Additionally, the ability of donors to step in is limited until late 2013.  The WB does
not have sufficient funding to step in for USAID and AusAid will not be able to adjust
is current programming, which will last for another 4 years.  The EU can fill any gap
left by USAID beginning in late 2013 as they will start a new 16 million Euro project
with the judiciary.  The new EU project will work in the following areas that are
similar to C4J’s objectives: human resources, education and training, case
management, and supervision.  The EU project will have the flexibility to develop
activities after the project has been awarded to the contractor.  Given sufficient time
to plan, the SC and EU should be able to implement many aspects of the Blueprint
without USAID support.  If a phased out approach is not utilized, however, there may
be a gap in programming for one or two years and reforms may move at a much
slower pace.
Attorney General’s Office
The WB, AusAid and KOICA are also providing funding to the AGO but support to the
AGO from international donors does not match the support to the SC.  As a result,      
the assistance provided by C4J is critical in some areas such as building the capacity
of the training center. The status of the training center has now been raised to the
level of an agency and is need of assistance to strengthen management and business
processes.  If C4J is able to continue support, building the capacity of this institution
will be key in building the capacity of the AGO as a whole.
Additionally, C4J support for bringing international experts to provide best practices
is critical as well as the support to bring AGO personnel from more remote regions to
training events. If such support was not present, the pace of reform would slow even
though the AGO as money to continue many of the reform programs on its own.  
Again, an appropriate strategy to provide international best practices is needed to
overcome the challenge of AGO’s rotation policy.  
23 
Will the sustainability of C4J activities carried out to‐date be negatively
impacted should the project be terminated or reduced prior to its
scheduled May 2014 completion date?
In general, the negative impact on the sustainability of C4J activities, should USAID
terminate the project or reduce funding prior to the scheduled end date, will depend
on the size and scope of the intervention.  The sustainability of activities that require
a greater financial investment or technology will be impacted more than activities
that build capacity through one‐time events.
Supreme Court
Given the GOI as already established its budget for 2012 and is in the process of
developing its 2013 budget, programming may cease for up to two years if other
funding sources cannot be found to cover an abrupt closeout by USAID.  Although
the smaller projects, such as creating training modules, appear to be sustainable, the
larger activities such as the CTS could be in jeopardy given the investment required
by the courts in equipment and its limited understanding of how to implement the
CTS across more than 300 General Courts.  The SC has does not have a sufficient plan
to cover the costs of equipment and ongoing maintenance of the CTS.  As a result,
the automation of the courts may take several more years without donor assistance
or the courts could decide not to implement the CTS.   This is a real risk as the
previous Chief Justice of the SC did not sign a decree declaring the C4J CTS to be the
only system to be adopted by all of the General Courts and there is a competing case
tracking system being implemented in a few courts.   
Attorney General’s Office
The C4J cooperation with the AGO has centered on training AGO staff to obtain quick
wins, supporting the training center, and assisting the AGO with restructuring its
human resources management system.  Given this assistance has not included the
introduction of a new software system or equipment for a nationwide roll‐out, there
should not be a negative effect on the sustainability of the C4J activities should
USAID reduce funding or terminate C4J prior to its scheduled end date.  The AGO is
expected to continue to move forward on reforms regardless of donor assistance.   
That being said, if the AGO does not have access to USAID funding, the AGO may not
have the funds to hire international experts nor bring AGO personnel to trainings
from more remote areas of Indonesia.  This will decrease the quality and depth of
trainings thereby slowing reforms.   
24 
Recommendations on continued USAID Indonesia support to the
Supreme Court and AGO (changes, additions, omissions).
Given C4J is aligned with the reform agendas of the SC and AGO, the following
recommendations are more focused on potential resource allocation and efforts to
improve sustainability of activities.   
1. It has been only 8 years since the “one‐roof” policy has consolidated the
general courts, religious courts, military courts and the specialized courts
under the management of the SC.  As a result, there are still competing
interests and many interested parties within the SC on any given reform
measure despite the creation of the JRT.  Thus, buy‐in from all parties is
critical to ensure successful program implementation.  This is especially true
for large scale activities that will be implemented across the country, such as
the CTS.  So far, C4J has buy‐in from the SC on implementing the CTS in more
than 300 General Courts.   Given there are competing interests and another
viable software option to create a case tracking system, the C4J should
continue to work with the SC to ensure the Chief Justice issues a decree to all
courts adopting the C4J sponsored case tracking system.  Without such a
decree, the courts have the flexibility to go their own direction creating a risk
of multiple case tracking systems being used by the courts.  
2. It is common for courts in transitioning nations to struggle with
comprehending the necessary investment in personnel and ongoing
maintenance associated with supporting a nation‐wide case tracking system.  
Indonesia is no different and C4J needs to continue to work with the SC to
determine the appropriate budget requirements for maintaining and
supporting the case tracking system beyond the life of C4J.  The courts
currently are not confident they have budgeted the correct amount of
resources to maintain or support the system being developed in cooperation
with C4J.    
3. As discussed earlier in the evaluation, rotation of staff, especially within the
AGO, creates capacity building issues.  Those who receive specific training
may or may not continue to have the same job responsibilities due to a
rotation system.  As a result, it is questionable whether C4J is building the
capacity of the SC and AGO in some instances.  In order to lessen this effect
and better utilize project resources, C4J should continue to focus on building
training modules and curriculum at the training centers as well as conducting
training of trainers to ensure sustainability. C4J should limit one‐time training
events unless assurances can be provided that the trainee will continue to
work in the same role for an acceptable specified time period.   
4. C4J should strengthen activities aimed at reforming the transfer systems in
the SC and AGO.  According to the reform agenda of the AGO, strengthening
25 
the rotation, transfer and promotion system is a component of Phase Two of
reform which should provide an opening for C4J.
5. According to the PMP from September 2010, the project is using indicators
1.3 and 2.3 that measure satisfaction by training attendees with a given
training.  This type of indicator is misleading as it is common for at least 80 %
of trainees to express satisfaction with donor‐funded training. This indicator
has even less meaning in the Indonesian context given the rotation policies of
the AGO and SC.  Given the problems associated with the rotation policies of
partner GOI institutions, this indicator should be removed and replaced or at
least supplemented by a new indicator that measures how many of the
trainees actually use the knowledge or skill obtained in training over a
specified timeframe.  This will provide a clearer picture of the capacity
building of the GOI partners.
6. C4J support to the courts is currently critical and an abrupt halt to
programing would jeopardize work in some areas such as support for the
case tracking system.  Any reduction in funding or closeout of the project
should be done in an orderly manner so that the courts and other donors
have sufficient time to plan for the exodus.  For example, the courts need a
one to two year lead time to insert project activities into their budget and the
new EU project will not be operational until late 2013.  
7. The AGO is well behind the SC in terms of reform and USAID and AusAid are
the only significant donors currently supporting the AGO.  Although the AGO
is discussing donor support for developing case management systems with
the WB and KOICA, if USAID Indonesia needs to make a decision on resource
allocation, it is recommended that the Mission explore expanding its
cooperation with the AGO, especially given the amount of funding the EU will
be providing to the courts in the same program areas as C4J.  Such a focus
may present ongoing challenges given the AGO’s stage of reform and lack of
experience working with international donors, but only reforming one of the
pillars of justice (courts) will slow overall progress in the justice sector.  
8. Although not explicit in the Blueprint, the court would like to move forward
with assistance on a gender program.  The first level courts have more of a
gender balance but women have not been elevated to higher positions within
the judiciary. 38  C4J should explore this window of opportunity.  
9. C4J should ensure that all working levels in the AGO are aware of the status
of workplan activities to avoid confusion and mistrust regardless of the cause
of any communication issues.  C4J should set up regular scheduled meetings
with all of its working partners within the AGO to ensure there are no
misunderstandings and to further build trust.  
 
38 Request by Pak Paulus during meeting on March 12, 2012
26 
10. C4J should explore options using a texting system of reporting or similar
system to the one utilized by the religious courts where there is 100%
compliance under an AusAid program.  This is especially relevant in the
remote areas where electricity is a problem and the lack of Internet will
possibly prevent the CTS from being utilized by the courts in those areas.
11. During a meeting with Bappenas, Ibu Dhani expressed interest in being
included earlier in the discussions during workplan development. Given
Bappenas needs to approve the workplan prior to its execution, C4J should
make efforts to include Bappenas earlier in the workplan development
process to facilitate faster approval of the workplan.  
27 
ANNEX 1: Scope of Work for the Evaluation
C4J MID‐TERM EVALUATION OVERVIEW
I. PROJECT BACKGROUND
The primary objective of the C4J is to improve the performance of Indonesia’s justice
system, a prerequisite for good governance and sustained economic growth.  
Assuming the leadership of the Supreme Court and Attorney General’s Office (AGO)
continue to demonstrate commitment to reform, support will be provided to the
Supreme Court and the AGO to assist with their institutional reform and capacity
building. The goal of C4J is a justice system that is transparent and predictable, one
in which judges, prosecutors and court personnel support the fight against
corruption, rather than conduct corrupt practices themselves. C4J focuses
specifically on transforming behavior and mindsets from a culture of impunity to a
culture of accountability.  
The principal results of this project will be:  
 More efficient, credible, and transparent functioning of the Supreme Court
and Attorney General’s Office.  
 Increased competence and integrity of judges, prosecutors and staff.  
II.   PURPOSE OF EVALUATION
USAID Indonesia is keen to ensure that its investments in support for justice sector
reform are aligned with and responsive to the reform agendas and needs of its GOI
partner institutions – the Supreme Court and Office of the Attorney General, as well
as the overall reform agenda of the GOI.  For purposes of USAID Indonesia’s future
planning, it will be useful to determine the extent to which these institutions view
C4J as integral to their current operations and future plans, as well as how
responsive they feel the project’s activities have been to institutional needs that
they cannot meet on their own.  In addition, we want to gauge the quality and
appropriateness of our partner GOI institutions’ reform agendas.  
III. EVALUATION QUESTIONS  
8. Are C4J activities aligned with the Supreme Court’s December 2010 Blue Print
for Reform 2010‐2035?
9. Are C4J activities supportive of the GOI national initiative to expand access to
justice?
10. Are C4J activities supportive of AGO’s reform agenda?
11. What is C4J providing that is integral to the success of its partner GOI
institutions’ reform agendas and that would not be happening, or would be
severely compromised, in the absence of this USAID support?
12. Given other current and planned donor assistance to the Supreme Court and
AGO, is continued C4J support to these institutions nevertheless critical?
13. Will the sustainability of C4J activities carried out to‐date be negatively
impacted should the project be terminated or reduced prior to its scheduled
May 2014 completion date?
28 
14. Recommendations on continued USAID Indonesia support to the Supreme
Court and AGO (changes, additions, omissions).
IV. BRIEFINGS
USAID Indonesia would like both an initial briefing by the Evaluator and a pre‐
departure briefing for comments and requests prior to final drafting of the
evaluation.  
V. PROPOSED AGENDA
1. Two weeks prior to travel – delivery of preliminary documents to Evaluator, to
include C4J SOW, existing official reform agendas of Supreme Court and AGO, C4J
Project work plans and reporting, final proposed list of interviewees with preliminary
schedule of interviews.
2. Two weeks of in‐country fieldwork – preliminary briefing; interviews with C4J
Project staff, representatives of Supreme Court and AGO, other donor and
stakeholder representatives; de‐briefing.
3. Two weeks following completion of fieldwork – submission of final draft report to
USAID Indonesia.
VI. KEY PERSONNEL
Due to the relatively limited scope of the evaluation, and the fact that this is a mid‐
term evaluation with the purpose of informing current and future USAID/Indonesia
rule of law programming, rather than producing a generalized overview of C4J
Project effectiveness, the evaluation will be carried out entirely by RDMA Senior
Rule of Law Advisor Garry Ledbetter.  
While not an outside consultant, the evaluator has played no role in the development
of the C4J Project or its management. We therefore believe there is not a conflict of
interest in USAID conducting this internal evaluation.   
The USAID/Indonesia Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) and the Chemonics
project team will provide support for this assessment, including helping to arrange
meetings, hotel, and transportation as well as translation/interpretation assistance.  
The Evaluator will review key documentation prior to conducting field work (e.g.
SOWs, Work Plans, Annual Performance reports, relevant GOI documents, etc.).  
Field Work will include a site visit to Jakarta where interviews will be conducted with
the following persons/institutions: see Annex 2.
VII. DELIVERABLES
The final document will be a 25‐30 page evaluation that summarizes findings and
outlines recommendations on continued USAID Indonesia support to the Supreme
Court and AGO, with proposed changes, additions, and/or omissions. The document
will be submitted to the USAID/Indonesia DG Director for review and comment prior
to finalization.  The first draft of the document will be completed no later than two
weeks following the conclusion of field work.  
29 
Annex 2
List of Documents for Review
1.      C4J Mid‐term Evaluation Overview.docx
2.      C4J Task Order (signed) (C4J CHEMONICS ‐ DFD‐I‐02‐08‐00070‐001.pdf)
3.      Year 1 Work Plan (C4J Y1 Work Plan Final_English.pdf)
4.      Year 1 GANTT Timeline (Copy of Bappenas Matrix 11 29 10.xls)
5.      Year 2 Work Plan (C4J Y2 Workplan.pdf)
6.      Year 2 GANTT Timeline Supreme Court (Component 1) (C4J Y2 WP Annex A
GANTT TIMELINE_Final to Ray.pdf)
7.      Year 2 GANTT Timeline AGO (Component 2) (C4J Y2 WP Annex B GANTT
TIMELINE_Final to Ray.pdf)
8.      Greg Alling describes Task order SOW activity naming and organization to
current KRA format (Greg on TO SOW to KRAs.docx)
9.      C4J PMP Submitted to USAID Sept 21 2010.pdf (revision of PMP is in process)
10.  Comparison of Key Results Areas in Year 1 and 2 Final 18Nov2011 (2).docx
11.  Letter_434.pdf
12.  Letter_434_English.docx
13.  Results Activities Indicators Comparison Oct 14 ‐ NA 181010 (2) tisch (2).pdf
14.  Donor Manual SK 143_2010 English Version (fm).pdf
15.  CHIEF JUSTICE DECREE OF SUPREME COURT.docx
16.  Supreme Court’s 25‐year reform plan (Judicial Reform Blueprint ‐ English
Version.pdf)
17. National Strategy on Access to Justice – LEAD Fact Sheet (UNDP)
  
Year 2 Sub-KRAs Results through Dec 2011 FY 2012 - FY 2013 Results in Pipeline 
Chapter IV, Directives on Reform of Technical 
Functions and Case Management. Section A. 
Directives on Reform of Technical Functions. 
1.3.3. Access to Justice Workshop on Implementation of Supreme 
Court’s Practice Direction on the Provision of 
Legal Aid [Surat Edaran Makamah Agung 
(SEMA) no.10/2010 with 64 participants, 55 
male and 9 female from 39 courts.
National and Regional Workshops on SEMA 
no.10/2010.
Chapter IV, Directives on Reform of Technical 
Functions and Case Management. Section B. 
Directives on Case Management Reform. 
1.1.3. Case Management District court-level course on caseflow 
management with 174 participants, 117 male 
and 57 female. 
Court Automation Readiness Survey (CARS) 
completed with more than 90% response from 
807 courts throughout Indonesia.
Case Information Management Summit (CIMS) -
- Approximately 70 trained
Business process reengineering on case 
management
1.2.1. Continuing Judicial 
Education (CJE) II
3 CJE II courses developed in Caseflow 
Management, Quality of Judgments, and 
Ethics: Pilot Training of Trainers Convention on 
CJE II - Caseflow Management with 21 judge 
participants, 19 male and 2 female. Pilot 
Training of Trainers Convention on CJE II - 
Quality of Judgments with 32 judge participants, 
22 male and 10 female
Pilot Training of Trainers Convention on CJE II - 
Ethics with 23 judge participants, 12 male and 
11 female
CJE II Training: Makassar -- Approximately 100 
judges trained, including TOT and roll-out
Roll-out to Padang (West Indonesia) and Ciawi 
(Central Indonesia -- Approximately 200 judges 
trained
1.2.2 Fellowship Programs Master's Degree Program developed and first of 
three semesters completed with 20 judges 
enrolled.
Technical asssitance on US study tour for 
Supreme Court leaders, 11 judge participants, 8 
male and 3 female. 
20 judges receive Master's Degree after first 
quarter of C4J Y3
1.2.3 Additional Courses Agreement with Supreme Court on developing 
courses on 1) State Financing in Relation to 
Anti Corruption Law and2) Legal Reasoning
Pilot trainings in September 2012; selective 
training in C4J Y3
Chapter V, Directives on Reform of 
Supporting Functions. Section C. Directives 
on Reform of Education and Training System. 
Competency Profiles for Case Management
50 Staff Trained on Competency Profiles
SC Acceptance of Competency Profile System
Approximately 100 individual assessments
Supreme Court Blue Print
2010-2035
C4J: May 2010 ‐ May 2014
Chapter V, Directives on Reform of 
Supporting Functions. Section B. Directives 
on Reform in Human Resources 
Management. 
1.1.1. Human Resources HR Reform Priorities Established 
Year 2 Sub-KRAs Results through Dec 2011 FY 2012 - FY 2013 Results in Pipeline 
Supreme Court Blue Print
2010-2035
C4J: May 2010 ‐ May 2014
1.2.4 Non-Judge CJE II courses adopted for non-judge staff; 
selective training in C4J Y3
1.2.5 E-Learning Comparative studies of e-learning procedures 
begun.
Comparative studies of 5 institutions conducitng 
e-learning in Indonesia presented to Supreme 
Court
Draft outline for e-learning blueprint and 
roadmap to be agreed upon by end of Y2 and 
pilot course on Caseflow Management (CJE II) 
to be implemented in Y3
Chapter V, Directives on Reform of 
Supporting Functions. Section D. Directives 
on Budget Management Reform. 
1.1.2. Budget and Finance 134 budget personnel, 88 male and 46 female, 
from high courts were trained on in Strategic 
Budgeting on October 3-9, in partnership with 
the Ministry of Finance
Support for budgetary independence; additional 
training and procedural improvements TBD, to 
support achievement of unqualified audit 
opinion
Chapter V, Directives on Reform of 
Supporting Functions. Section F. Directives 
on Information Technology Reform. 
1.1.4 Information Technology 3 Courts provided with extensive IT Equipment 
(Palembang, Bandung, Samarinda)
4 Courts provided with Case Tracking System) 
CTS Version 1 software (Palembang, Bandung, 
Samarinda, Surabaya)
254 people, 165 male and 89 female, trained in 
CTS and Equipment
CTS Version 1 in 5 new courts -- Approx 350 
trainees
3 Courts Providing Digital Audio Recording 
(DAR) Equipment and Trainings - Approx 80 
trainees
CTS Version 2 Developed and Installed 
(withTraining) in 8-12 courts -- Approx 500 
trainees -- in Y2/Y3
1.3.1. Public Information 22 judges and non-judge staff, 18 male and 4 
female, study tour to Singapore.
3 Public Information Desks (Palembang, 
Bandung, Samarinda)
22 people, 12 male and 10 female, trained in 
Transparency & Public Information Access
2 Public Information Desks (Denpasar, 
Makassar)
Approximately 20 Trained
Ongoing technical assistance; improvement of 
Standard Operating Procedures
1.3.2. Media Relations A series of Supreme Court talk shows were 
conducted on TV One with Supreme Court high 
officials as resource persons
Development of guidelines for journalists in 
understanding Indonesian legal system and 
reporting on court.
Chapter VI, Directives on Accountability 
Reform. Section B. Directives on Reform of 
Information Transparency System. 
List of Contacts for C4J Mid‐Term Evaluation
Day/Date Time Place Contact Person Other Postions Address Email Mobile Phone Office / Fax Related Project topic Related C4J technical staff Remark
C4J CIMs Monday,
12Mar'12
Morning Aryaduta Hotel
Jl. Prapatan 44‐48
Jakarta Pusat
Rian:
081288714451/
Yolin:
08119702566
Supreme
Court
Courtesy
Meeting
for
Overview of
Visit
Tuesday, 13
Mar'12
09:00 ‐ 09:50 SUPREME COURT :
Jl. Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
Phone: (021)
3457661 ext 317
Eriza:
08161655123
(assistant)
1 Widayatno Sastrohardjono,
S.H., M.Sc
(as Head of Development,
invited to all Supreme Court
groups)
Ketua Muda Pembinaan
MARI
RI SC Junior Chief of
Advancement
n/a SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
tuada_pembinaa
n@yahoo.com
Eriza:
08161655123
(assistant)
Telp : (021) 3457661
ext 317 /344 6842
Strategic/overal
l
Done
Pak Paulus's Room
2nd fl Blok D
2 Profesor Dr. Paulus Effendi
Lotulung, S.H.
(as Head of Reform Team,
inivited to all Supreme
Court groups)
Ketua Muda Urusan
Lingkungan Peradilan
Tata Usaha Negra MA
RI/Koordinator Tim
Pembaruan Peradilan
MA RI
RI SC Junior Chief of
State Administrative
Courts/Coordinator
of RI SC Judicial
Reform Assistance
Team
Coordinator
Judicial Reform
(Koordinator
Reformasi
Kehakiman)
SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
paulus_el@yaho
o.com ;
yevnifitri@yahoo.
com
Yevni:
081384877264
(Assistant)
Telp : (021) 3810350
ext 333/ 3457569
Strategic/overal
l. Human
Resources.
Access to
Justice.
Yudit Yuhana
(HR Specialist),
Dewi
Novirianti
(Access to
Justice
Specialist)
Done
Supreme
Court
Tuesday, 13
Mar'12
10:15 ‐ 11:15 Aryaduta Hotel
Jl. Prapatan 44‐48
Jakarta Pusat
Rian:
081288714451/
Yolin:
08119702566
1 Dr. Aco Nur, S.H., M.H. Kepala Badan Urusan
Administrasi MA RI
RI SC Head of
Administrative Affairs
Agency
n/a SUPREME COURT
(BUA/Administrative
Affairs Agency) Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
bua@mahkamah
agung.go.id atau
weniw@yahoo.c
om
Weni:
08129495745
(assistant)
Telp : (021) 3810350
ext 347/ 381 0361
Human Resource Yudit Yuhana
(HR Specialist)
Done
2 Aria Suyudi, S.H., LLM Tim Asistensi
Pembaruan Peradilan
MA RI (Koordinator)
RI SC Judicial Reform
Assistance Team
(Coordinator)
n/a SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
ariasss@gmail.co
m
08161917569, Telp: (021) 3457661
/3459892
Strategic/overal
l, Human
Resources;
Access to
Justice, case
management
Yudit (HR
Specialist),
Dewi
Novirianti
(Access to
Justice
Specialist)
Done
3 Yudit Yuhana, S.H. Member RI SC Judicial Reform
Assistance Team
RI SC Assistance
Team
(also employee
of C4J)
yyuhana@chemo
nics.com
0811 967 692 0811 967 692 Telp: (021)
3457661
/3459892
Yudit Yuhana
(HR Specialist)
Done
Attorney
General's
Office
Courtesy
Visit
Tuesday, 13
Mar'12
12:00 ‐ 13:00 AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
Pak Feri's Room:
Main Building 3rd
fl
Loli : 0817 776
628 (assistant)
1 Feri Wibisono, S.H., M.H.,
C.N.
Kepala Biro Perencanaan
Kejaksaan Agung RI
Head of Planning
Bureau AGO RI
Sekretaris Tim
Reformasi
Birokrasi/
Secretary of
Bureaucratic
Reform Team
AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
loly@kejaksaan.g
o.id
Loli : 0817 776 628
(assistant),
fwibisono@hotmai
l.com
Telp : (021)
7395324/ 7247613
Human
Resources
Kristina Dewi,
Theodora Putri
Done
Updated as of 12 March 2012
Institution Name Position (Bahasa/English)
Human
Resources
and
Budgeting
1
Day/Date Time Place Contact Person Other Postions Address Email Mobile Phone Office / Fax Related Project topic Related C4J technical staff Institution Name Position (Bahasa/English) Remark
Attorney
General's
Office
Public
Access to
Information
Group I
Wednesday,
14 Mar'12
08:00 ‐ 09:00 AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
1 Widoyoko, S.H., M.Hum Kepala Bagian
Penyuluhan Hukum &
Penerangan Hukum
Head of Legal
Socialization &
Information Section
n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
n/a n/a Telp : (021) 723
6510
AGO Public
Access and
Engagement
Bahrul
Wijaksana
(Communicati
ons Manager)
Done
Attorney
General's
Office
Public
Access to
Information
Group I
Friday, 16
Mar'12
14:00 ‐ 15:30 AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
2 Chaerudin Sipahutar, S.H. Kepala Bagian
Hubungan Masyarakat
dan Media
Head of Section
Public and Media
Relation
n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
n/a 081396631313 Telp : (021) 723
6510
AGO Public
Access and
Engagement
Bahrul
Wijaksana
(Communicati
ons Manager)
Done
Supreme
Court
Wednesday,
14 Mar'12
10:00 ‐ 11:00 SUPREME COURT :
Jl. Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
Phone: (021)
3457661 ext 382
08111921277 1 Dr.Mohammad Saleh, S.H.,
M.H.
Ketua Muda Perdata
Khusus MA RI
Deputy Chief Justice
for Special Civil Affairs
Ketua Kelompok
Kerja Pendidikan
dan latihan Tim
Pembaruan
Peradilan MA RI/
Chairman of
Working Group
for Education
and Training
Judicial Reform
Team SC‐RI
SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
n/a 08111921277 Tlp : (021) 3811152
ext 382 / 3811152
CJE II,
Fellowship
Program.
Dian Cahayani
(Training
Specialist), Ana
Rusmanawaty
(Judicial
Training
Expert)
Done
Pak Saleh's Room
2nd fl Blok D
2 I.G Agung Sumanatha, S.H.,
M.H.
Hakim Yustisial/Kepala
Pusdiklat Teknis
Peradilan Badan Litbang
Diklat Hukum dan
Peradilan MA RI
Functional
Judge/Head of
Judiciary Techniques
Training Center of RI
SC Legal & Judiciary
Training Research &
Development Agency
n/a SUPREME COURT
(PUSDIKLAT HUKUM
& PERADILAN/Legal &
Judiciary Training
Center). Jl. Cikopo
Selatan, Desa
Sukamaju,
Kec. Mega Mendung
Kab. Bogor Jawa Barat
pusdiklatteknis@l
itbangdiklatkumd
il.net
08128436444 Telp: (0251) 824
9520/24/48/ (0251)
824 9532
CJE II Ana
Rusmanawaty
(Judicial
Training
Expert)
Done
4 Fifiek Mulyana, S.H., LLM Tim Asistensi
Pembaruan Peradilan
MA RI
RI SC Judicial Reform
Assistance Team
n/a SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
fifiek279@yahoo.c0811 967 692 Telp: (021) 3457661
/3459892
Human
Resources
Yudit Yuhana
(HR Specialist)
Not attend
Supreme
Court
Wednesday,
14 Mar'12
12:00 ‐ 13:00 Aryaduta Hotel
Jl. Prapatan 44‐48
Jakarta Pusat
Rian:
081288714451/
Yolin:
08119702566
1 H. Atja Sondjaja, S.H. Ketua Muda Perdata MA
RI / Ketua Kelompok
Kerja Manajemen
Perkara Tim Pembaruan
RI SC Junior Chief of
Civil Cases / Head of
Case Management
Working Group in the
Assistance Team
Chairman of SC
WG Case
Management,
CJE II Curriculum
Team
Coordinator
SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
edypramono@g
mail.com,
deenov@gmail.c
om
Dian:
081317281062
(assistant)
Telp : (021) 384
6605 ext. 380 / 384
6605
CJE II, Case
Management,
Access to
Justice,
Information and
Technology.
Ariyo Bimo
(Court
Administration
Specialist), Ana
Rusmanawaty
(Judicial
Training
Expert),
Akhmad Bakhri
(IT Expert)
2 H. Cicut Sutiarso, S.H., M.
Hum
Dirjen Badan Peradilan
Umum MA RI
RI SC Directorate
General (DG) of
General Courts
n/a SUPREME COURT
(BADILUM/General
Courts) : RI SC
Secretariat, Jl. Jend.
A. Yani kav. 58 By
Pass, Cempaka Putih
n/a Basari:
081387111212
(assistant)
Tlp : (021) 2907
9176/ 2907 9196
Fellowship
Program, Access
to Justice.
Dian Cahayani
(Training
Specialist)
3 Aria Suyudi, S.H., LLM Tim Asistensi
Pembaruan Peradilan
MA RI (Koordinator)
RI SC Judicial Reform
Assistance Team
(Coordinator)
n/a SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
ariasss@gmail.co
m
08161917569, Telp: (021) 3457661
/3459892
Strategic/overal
l, Human
Resources;
Access to
Justice, case
management
Yudit (HR
Specialist),
Dewi
Novirianti
(Access to
Justice
Specialist) 4 Desita Sari, S.H., MKn Tim Asistensi
Pembaruan Peradilan
MA RI
RI SC Judicial Reform
Assistance Team
n/a SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
desita.sari@gmail
.com or
desitamail@gmail
.com
08128077398 Telp: (021) 3457661
/3459892
Strategic/overal
l, Human
Resources;
Access to
Justice, case
management
Yudit (HR
Specialist),
Dewi
Novirianti
(Access to
Justice
Specialist)
Education
and Training
Case
Manage‐
ment/
Access to
Justice
Former
schedule:
Wed,
14Mar'12 at
10:30 ‐
12:00
2
Day/Date Time Place Contact Person Other Postions Address Email Mobile Phone Office / Fax Related Project topic Related C4J technical staff Institution Name Position (Bahasa/English) Remark
Supreme
Court
Wednesday,
14 Mar'12
13:00 ‐ 14:00 Aryaduta Hotel
Jl. Prapatan 44‐48
Jakarta Pusat
Rian:
081288714451/
Yolin:
08119702566
1 Drs. Wahyudin, M.Si Direktur Pembinaan
Administrasi Peradilan
Umum Ditjen Badilum
Director of
Administrative
Advancement of the
DG of General Courts
n/a SUPREME COURT
(BADILUM/General
Courts) : RI SC
Secretariat, Jl. Jend.
A. Yani kav. 58 By
Pass, Cempaka Putih
Timur, Jakarta Pusat
13011
n/a Mimin :
081384558020
(assistant)
Tlp : (021) 2907
9176 ext 1521/ 2907
9201
Case
Management,
Access to
Justice
Ariyo Bimo
(Court
Administration
Specialist),
Dewi
Novirianti
(Access to
Justice
Specialist),
Akhmad Bakhri
(IT Expert)
2 Joko Upoyo Pribadi, S.H. Kepala Bagian
Pemeliharaan Sarana
Informatika, Biro Hukum
dan Humas, Badan
Urusan Administrasi MA
RI
Head of Information
Facilities
Maintenance, RI SC
Administrative
Afffairs Agency
n/a SUPREME COURT
(HUKUM &
HUMAS/Legal &
Public Relations
Bureau) Jl. Medan
Merdeka Utara No. 9‐
13, Jakarta Pusat.
bag_hubla@yahoon/a Telp : (021)
3457661 ext 477/
352 0863
Case
Management,
Information and
Technology
Akhmad Bakhri
(IT Expert),
Ariyo Bimo
(Court
Administration
Specialist)
3 Haemiwan Fathoni, S.Kom F
(Iwan)
Tim Asistensi
Pembaruan Peradilan
MA RI
RI SC Judicial Reform
Assistance Team
n/a SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
iwanzf@gmail.com0818 164 150 Telp: (021) 3457661
/3459892
Access to
Justice, Case
Management,
Information and
Technology
Dewi
Novirianti
(Access to
Justice
Specialist),
Akhmad Bakhri
(IT Expert)
Confrim
Supreme
Court
Wednesday,
14 Mar'12
15:30 ‐ 17:00 SUPREME COURT :
Jl. Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
Phone: (021)
3457661 ext 325
Nadia:
08126612746
1 Prof Dr. Takdir Rahmadi,
S.H., LL.M
Hakim Agung/Wakil
Koordinator Tim
Pembaruan MA RI
Justice/Deputy
Coordinator of RI SC
Reform Team
n/a SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
n/a 08126612746 Tlp: (021) 384 3348
ext. 325/ 384 6605
Confirm
2 Nurhadi S.H., M.H Sekretaris MA RI Secretary of RI
Supreme Court
n/a SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat. Tlp :
021 ‐ 384 3557/384
3348
jumadi_asw@yah
oo.co.id
Jumadi
:08164813604
(assistant)
Telp : (021) 384
3624/ 345 3553
Public
Information
Eric Sasono
(Communicati
on Expert)
cannot
attend
Pak Takdir's Room
Lt 3 Blok B
3 David MT. Simanjuntak, S.E Kepala Bagian
Hubungan antar
Lembaga
Head of Inter‐agency
Relations Section
n/a SUPREME COURT
(HUKUM &
HUMAS/Legal &
Public Relations
Bureau) Jl. Medan
Merdeka Utara No. 9‐
13, Jakarta Pusat.
bag_hubla@yaho
o.com
n/a Telp: (021) 3457661
ext 599/ 344 6962
Public
Information
Eric Sasono
(Communicati
on Expert)
Confirm
4 Haemiwan Fathoni, S.Kom F
(Iwan)
Tim Asistensi
Pembaruan Peradilan
MA RI
RI SC Judicial Reform
Assistance Team
n/a SUPREME COURT : Jl.
Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
iwanzf@gmail.com0818 164 150 Telp: (021) 3457661
/3459892
Access to
Justice, Case
Management,
Information and
Technology
Dewi
Novirianti
(Access to
Justice
Specialist),
Akhmad Bakhri
(IT Expert)
Confirm
Public
Access to
Information
Group I
Case
Manage‐
ment/
Information
Technology
Former
schedule:
Wed,
14Mar'12 at
14:00 ‐ 
15:30
3
Day/Date Time Place Contact Person Other Postions Address Email Mobile Phone Office / Fax Related Project topic Related C4J technical staff Institution Name Position (Bahasa/English) Remark
Supreme
Court
Thursday, 15
Mar'12
9:00 ‐ 10:30 SUPREME COURT :
Jl. Medan Merdeka
Utara No. 9‐13,
Jakarta Pusat.
Phone: (021)
3457661 ext 407
Indah:
081905264886
1 Dr. H. Ridwan Mansyur,
S.H., M.H
Lama: KPN Palembang,
Baru: Kahumas MA RI
Previous: Chief Judge
of Palembang District
Court, Current: Head
of SC RI Public
Relations
n/a Palembang District
Court: Jalan Kapten A
Rivai No 16.
Palembang
n/a Indah:
081905264886
Telp: (021) 3457661
ext 407/ 344 6962
Eric Sasono
(Communicati
on Expert)
Confirm
2 Andri T.Sutisna, S.H, M.H Subbag. Hubungan
Organisasi
Kemasyarakatan dan
Organisasi Profesi
Social and
Professional
Organizations
Relations Sub‐Section
n/a SUPREME COURT
(HUKUM &
HUMAS/Legal &
Public Relations
Bureau) Jl. Medan
Merdeka Utara No. 9‐
13, Jakarta Pusat.
bag_hubla@yaho
o.com
n/a Telp: (021) 3457661
/ 344 6962
Public
Information
Eric Sasono
(Communicati
on Expert)
Confirm
Ruang Rapat Biro
Hukum Humas, 2nd
fl
3 Ifah Arthur Kurniati, AMD Staf di Bagian Hubungan
Antar Lembaga Biro
Hukum dan Humas MA
RI
Staf at External
relations dept. Legal
and Public Affairs,
Supreme Court of
Indonesia
n/a SUPREME COURT
(HUKUM &
HUMAS/Legal &
Public Relations
Bureau) Jl. Medan
Merdeka Utara No. 9‐
13, Jakarta Pusat.
n/a n/a Telp: (021) 3457661
/ 344 6962
Public
Information
Eric Sasono
(Communicati
on Expert)
Confirm
Bappenas Courtesy
Meeting
Thursday, 15
Mar'12
15:00 ‐16:00 BAPPENAS : Jl.
Taman Suropati No.
2, Jakarta Pusat
10310.
1 Diani Sadiawati, S.H., LLM Direktur Hukum dan Hak
Asasi Manusia,
BAPPENAS
Director of Legal and
Human Rights,
National
Development Agency
(BAPPENAS)
n/a BAPPENAS : Jl. Taman
Suropati No. 2,
Jakarta Pusat 10310.
diani@bappenas.g0816 182 2614 Telp : (021) 3193
4723; ext 3201/
3193 4723
Confirm
Attorney
General's
Office
Public
Access to
Information
Group II
Friday, 16
Mar'12
09:00 ‐ 10:00 AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
1 Justinus Soesilo, S.H., M.H. Direktur IV, General
Crime / Direktur IV
Tindak Pidana Umum
Team Leader, Public
Information Service
Training
n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
08125684825 Telp : (021) 723
6510
AGO Public
Access and
Engagement
Theodora
Putri,
Bahrul
Wijaksana
Confirm
2 Priharto Budi Santoso,
S.H.,M.H.
Anti‐Corruption Task
Force
Former Staff of
Puspenkum, Trainer
for Public Information
Service
n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
081539220482 Telp : (021) 723
6510
AGO Public
Access and
Engagement
Theodora
Putri,
Bahrul
Wijaksana
Confirm
3 Suhendri Website Coordinator Public and Media
Relation
n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
opung16@yaho
o.com
085369239121 Telp : (021) 723
6510 / 021‐7221269
AGO Public
Access and
Engagement
Theodora
Putri,
Bahrul
Wijaksana
Confirm
Public
Access to
Information
Group II
4
Day/Date Time Place Contact Person Other Postions Address Email Mobile Phone Office / Fax Related Project topic Related C4J technical staff Institution Name Position (Bahasa/English) Remark
World Bank Monday, 19
Mar'12
9:00 C4J Office Plaza
UOB 34th floor. Jln
MH Thamrin Kav 8‐
9 Jakarta.
Phone:
021 29937334
1 Amien Sunaryadi Senior Operations
Officer, Governance and
Anti Corruption – OSU
Senior Operations
Officer, Governance
and Anti Corruption –
OSU‐ World Bank
n/a World Bank: Gedung
Bursa Efek Jakarta
Tower 2 Lt 12. Jln
Jend Sudirman kav 32‐
35. Jakarta
asunaryadi@worl
dbank.org
0811161029 Telp: (021)
52993000/
52993111
tbc
Australia Aid 12:00 2 Emily Rainey Law and Justice Program Law and Justice
Program
n/a AUSAID: Jalan HR
Rasuna Sahid Kav C
16‐16. Jakarta Selatan
12940
Emily.Rainey@au
said.gov.au
0811102846 Telp: (021) 2550
5573/ 2550 5582
tbc
European
Union
12:00 3 Simona Palma n/a Intiland Tower, 16th
floor
Jl Jend Sudirman 32
Jakarta 10220
simona.palma@e
eas.europa.eu
simona.palma@ee
as.europa.eu
Tel: + 62 21 2554
6200
tbc
OPDAT tbc
C4J CIMs Monday, 19
Mar'12
13:00 C4J Office Plaza
UOB 34th floor. Jln
MH Thamrin Kav 8‐
9 Jakarta.
Phone:
021 29937334
District
Courts
Palembang
or
Bandung
District
Court
Tuesday, 20
Mar'12
All day Palembang
Attorney
General's
Office
Human
Resources
Wednesday,
21 Mar'12
AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
Ibu Aryani:
0818 825 309
1 Dra. Aryani Sihombing Kepala Bagian Umum Head of General
Affairs
n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
aryanisihombing
@kejaksaan.go.id
0818 825 309, Telp : (021)
7395324/ 7243595
Human
Resources
Kristina Dewi,
Theodora Putri
Confirm
2 Danang Suryo, S.H., LLM Kepala Sub Bagian
Jenjang Karir
Head of Career
Advancement Sub‐
Section
n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
n/a 0812‐84777‐777 Telp : (021) 7243595
/ 7203062
ext.10275/10276
Human
Resources
Kristina Dewi
(AGO HR
Specialist),
Theodora Putri
(Prosecutorial
Specialist)
Confirm
3 Indro Sugianto, S.H., M.H Anggota Tim Pembaruan AGO RI Reform Team n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
indrosugianto@
yahoo.com
'0815 943 4228 Telp : (021) 739
3889/ 723 0899
Strategic,
overall
Theodora Putri
(Prosecutorial
Specialist)
Confirm
Attorney
General's
Office
Wednesday,
21 Mar'12
10:30 ‐ 12:00 Pusdiklat
Kejaksaan Agung:
Jln Jl. RM. Harsono
No. 94 Pasar
Minggu
Nova:
082122207654
(Assistant)
1 Mahfud Manan, S.H., M.H. Kepala Badan Pelatihan
& Pendidikan
Head of AGO
Education and
Training Agency
Pusdiklat Kejaksaan
Agung: Jln Jl. RM.
Harsono No. 94 Pasar
Minggu
n/a Nova:0821‐
22207654
(Assistant)
Telp: (021) 780
6861/780 6004
Sari Seruni
(Training
Specialist)
tbc
2 Neva Sari Susanti MH,
Mhum
Kepala Sub Bagian Diklat
Teknis Fungsional
Head of Functional
Technical Education
and Training Sub‐
Section
n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
nevarindu@yaho
o.com
08161154570 Telp : (021) 7395324
| FAX: 021‐7806004
AGO Training
Center
(Badiklat)
Sari Seruni
(Training
Specialist)
tbc
3 Sukma Violetta, SH. LLM Ketua Tim Pembaruan AGO RI Reform Team
Coordinator
n/a AGO : Jl. Sultan
Hasanuddin No. 1,
Jakarta Selatan
12160.
violettasukma@y
ahoo.com
0812 134 6419 Telp : (021) 739
3889/ 723 0889 |
Biro Perencanaan:
021‐724‐7613
Strategic,
overall
Sari Seruni
Theodora Putri
tbc
09:00 ‐ 10:30
Education
and Training
Donor
Coordin‐
ation
Meeting
5