Legal:
Legal system of a country refers to the laws, rules and regulations and the processes by which the laws are enforced and through which redress for grievances are obtained. The legal system is of at most importance to any country for international business. Legal system of Indonesia is based on the civil law system, which is a mix of customary law and the Roman Dutch law. Before the colonisation by the Dutch, kingdoms ruled the island groups independently with their own custom laws, called as Adat. Influences from foreign lands had an effect on culture and these Adat laws. Some places like Aech in Sumatra follow their own law called the Sharia law, whereas animistic customary law is being followed by an ethnic group in Sulawesi. So the
…show more content…
This makes the legal system all the more complex. Indonesia doesn’t follow the common law jurisdictions, but follows the civil law jurisdictions. So their judicial system has various courts under the purview of the Supreme Court, also called as the Mahkamah Agung. One good thing about following the civil law is that it tends to be less adversarial than the common law system, because the judges rely upon detailed legal codes rather than interpreting tradition, precedent, and customs. The judges also have flexibility, unlike that in case of common law system. However, the judges in the civil law system have the power only to apply the law, but those in the common law system have the power to interpret the law. In 1998, the Indonesian authorities established the Commercial Court also called as the Pengadilan Niaga, which handles the issues of bankruptcy and insolvency. Its jurisdiction can be extended to other commercial matters as well. Appeals from the Commercial Court proceed direct to the Supreme Court. There is also a State Administrative Court, known as Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara, which hears administrative law cases filed against the government. This proves to be an effective court for the benefit of the people of Indonesia. The Constitutional Court …show more content…
Corruption is so endemic in the country that politicians and bureaucrats regard it as a perk of office and openly flout laws against corruption. Corruption has made the judicial process is slow and inefficient, reduced the FDI, level of international trade and the economic growth of the country. Corruption is present right from the nation 's judiciary and law enforcers to the parliament and other key institutions like the police department. A case is found where the former Constitutional Court chief justice was sentenced to life imprisonment for accepting more than $4.8 million in exchange for favourable rulings in regional election disputes in June 2014. This proves that the property rights’ enforcement is uneven and inefficient. No wonder this made the ease of doing business, tedious. Stats show that it takes about 200 days to meet the licencing requirements and that there are about 10 procedures on an average, just to launch a business successfully. The property rights index on the scale of 0 to 100, shows the degree to government enforces the property right laws, the existence of corruption and the degree to which the country’s law protects the property rights. Indonesia ranks 30th in this scale. Higher the score, the more protected are the property rights. The Intellectual Property Rights Index as of 2015, show the following stats
The 1992 Mabo High Court case represents one of the most profound cases in Australian history leading to the turning point of Reconciliation for Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. As a result of this decision, it changed the legislation of the indigenous Australians introducing land rights and impacted the indigenous Australians society rights and freedom as a more desirable outcome in the movement towards Reconciliation. The 1992 Mabo court case was a pivotal turning point in the progressive Reconciliation in Australia. It paved the pathway for Indigenous land rights and confronted the state of Queensland and Australian commonwealth to regain their freedom and equality.
The known problem with this type of system comes with situations that lead to social problems, mostly if the judge that was elected make his/her decisions for the sole purpose “for the vote”, ("Procedural Law,"
I find myself writing you asking for guidance within the walls of the 12th Justice System. My daughter continues to be in the middle of ledge issues with the adopted mother of my granddaughter. However, this is a family matter, in which we will have to figure out on our end.
In 1982 Eddie Mabo went to court to challenge the law of terra nullius and take back his people right to the land. This particular case was taken to the high court. Mabo’s argument was that indigenous people owned land prior to the law of terra nullius being put into action. The high court finally came to a decision to overturn the law of terra nullius on the 3rd of June 1992. However this decision came with a consequence, that of which was that many people did not believe that the high court had the authority to overturn the law of terra nullius and that a decision of this caliber was to left to parliament.
1. Aboriginals peoples should have their own court system because there would be no bias or over generalized stereotyping to skew decisions or sentencing. Aboriginals are overrepresented in our Canadian Court System. Alcoholism and crime go hand in hand. Alcoholism in Aboriginals unfortunately is a common problem because of colonization and social upheaval.
The constrained court views and understands the limitations to creating social change have been constitutionally
The court structure in the United States is comprised of a dual court system. The dual court system consists of “one system of state and local courts and another system of federal courts” (Bohm & Haley, 2011, p. 274). Although the system has a separate court system for state and federal court, they do connect in the United States Supreme Court. Each court has various levels of jurisdiction to hear and make decisions over cases (Bohm & Haley, 2011).
Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.
(Wikipedia, 2014). Corruption in
The Court’s effectiveness relies on the institutional capacities as well as the ruling’s popularity. When lower-court judges comply with Supreme Court decisions, rulings can have a substantial effect on social policies, as in the case
Indonesia went through crucial events in the last few centuries including the spread of Islamic faith and influence. The spreading started out from trades that happened between Indonesians and Arabians (Sousa). Religious laws and traditions have changed from the moment Islam spread in Indonesia. Architectural style and mandatory rules also changed. Islam also had an impact on Indonesia economically, such as on banking and financial products (Rama).
The four major legal families of law are Civil Law, Common Law, Socialist Law, and Sacred Law. Today, most nations follow either Civil Law or Common Law. Sometimes, countries mix civil and common law and use a little of both. Some countries that follow Civil Law are China, Japan, Germany, France, and Spain. The countries that follow Common Law are North America, the United Kingdom, and other Commonwealth countries around the world.
TUNRADA W. 5504641993 Democracy and Corruption Does democracy produces or reduces corruption and how The question whether democracy produces or reduces corruption has been raised in the past decade observing the mixed evidences occurred across the world. Some democratic states tend to successfully overcome the problem of corruption, some in contrary faces with the more dramatic trouble than before. In the some unsuccessful, discourses were made blaming democracy as a tool for greedy agencies to take advantage from the people of the country.
The hierarchy of courts of Malaysia begins with the Magistrates’ Court, followed by the Sessions Court, High Court, Court of Appeal and finally is the Federal Court of Malaysia. There are generally two types of trials, criminal and civil. The jurisdiction of the courts in civil or criminal matters are contained in the Subordinate Courts Act 1948 and the Courts of Judicature Act 1964. Article 121 of the Constitution provides for two High Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction, the High Court in Malaya, and the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak. Thus this creates two separate local jurisdiction of the courts – for Peninsular Malaysia and for East Malaysia.
In the said case, the counsel for the appellants tried to argue before the Court of Appeal that the decision in the case Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor was wrong. Because the court was heard in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It was also