Common law countries, known as a jurisdiction where the judge makes law. However, this conception adopted by Civil Law countries including Indonesia. In Indonesia, the judge in court or Constitutional Court occasionally interpret and create a law to fill in the gap between law and society or amend the law to respond citizens’ interest. This practice has longstanding tradition and srong root since Roman Empire and also in Indonesia. It becomes one of the influential factors of the convergence of Common law judiciary system that could invent the law in Indonesia.IntisariNegara penganut sistem hukum Common Law dikenal sebagai yurisdiksi dimana hakim sebagai pihak pembuat hukum (judge made law). Konsep tersebut sudah diadopsi negara bersistem hukum EropaKontinental seperti Indonesia. Hakim pengadilan maupun hakim konstitusi tidak jarang membuat penemuan hukum untuk mengisi ketiadaan hukum atau memperbarui hukum agar sesuai dengan kebutuhan zaman. Praktik penemuan dan pembentukan hukum oleh hakim di pengadilan ini ternyata memiliki akar sejarah serta tradisi yang cukup kuat sejak zaman romawi dan termasuk juga di Indonesia. Hal tersebut menjadi salah satu faktor penting terjadinya konvergensi sistem peradilan Common Law yang menemukan dan membentuk hukum di Indonesia.

Rape is a complex crime in terms of law enforcement and is usually perpetrated by somebody who has a close relationship or connection to the victim. The availability of evidence is usually limited. Unfortunately, law enforcement officials and the justice system often poorly deal with victims of sexual violence. There have been several cases in which a judge undermined a victim's testimony because of the victim's sexual history and purported lack of resistance during the rape, leading to a lenient punishment for or acquittal of the defendant. Therefore, I assert that rape law should be revised to minimize the involvement of a judge's prejudice or bias with regard to certain forms of evidence. I suggest that Indonesia could learn from the introduction of a rape shield law in the U.S., which protects sexual violence victims from being cross-examined in court about their sexual history. This law encourages victims to report a sexual crime and increases the probability of a conviction because it excludes from court accounts of the victim's sexual history and inability to resist the attack.

As part of anticorruption reform, the Indonesian Anticorruption Court Law 2009 mandated the establishment of 514 anti-corruption courts in every city. The Indonesian Supreme Court, however, could only establish 34 courts. Three factors that explain this delay: (1) a lack of budget to fund the court; (2) the limited number of people with the integrity and capacity to serve as ad hoc judges; and (3) distrust from citizens regarding the conviction rate and corruption that occurred within the anticorruption court. Some activist and legal scholars proposed either to evaluate or even abolish the anticorruption court. This article contributes in evaluating the newly created court. There are two indicators, cost per case and collection of monetary penalty that could serve as the basis of cost-effectiveness analysis of the Indonesian Anticorruption Court. As a preliminary review, the prosecution of the crime of corruption is cost-effective if the cases had been prosecuted by the Anticorruption Agency (KPK). Alternative policies based on cost-effectiveness are proposed to improve the performance of the anticorruption court without sacrificing resources.

Because Indonesian courts are increasingly overrun with criminal cases, Indonesian lawmakers recently introduced a criminal procedure bill to include "special procedure" (jalur khusus), a procedure that allows defendants to plead guilty in order to increase efficiency. Unlike plea-bargaining in the United States, this procedure resembles China's "summary procedure," which is solely conducted by a judge, not negotiated independently by prosecutors and defendants. Before enacting the provision of special procedure, however, Indonesian lawmakers should learn from China's successes and failures implementing summary procedure. While this procedure resulted in increased efficiency in China, it did not provide for defense counsel, and it resulted in an increased risk of false confessions. The author begins by describing the overcrowding of Indonesian courts and the need for increased efficiency. Next he describes several lessons from China's experience by identifying China's successes and failures after enacting summary procedure. Finally he gives specific recommendations to Indonesian lawmakers for maximizing the special procedure in light of China's experience.

No abstract