Mixed reactions to justice council

Mixed reactions to justice council

By Ida Indawati Khouw

JAKARTA (JP): The Supreme Court's decision to set up special
justice councils on intellectual property rights and banking has
drawn mixed reactions from lawyers and observers.

Some say the court's decision is progressive but others doubt
that the councils will be able to solve the increasingly
complicated problems facing the judiciary.

But most favor the creation of the special councils.

Intellectual property rights observer Insan Budi Maulana said
it was "a good idea".

On June 9, Chief Justice Sarwata announced the councils'
formation to anticipate free trade in the next century.

The council on intellectual property rights is co-chaired by
Sarwata and Deputy Chief Justice Th. Ketut Suraputra. The council
on banking is headed by Deputy Chief Justice for Civil Courts
Mochamad Iman.

To improve judges' knowledge on intellectual property rights,
Sarwata said, the court would hold a training program this month
for junior judges aged below 35 years.

In May, Indonesia ratified five international conventions on
intellectual property rights. Suraputra said the conventions
should now be respected as Indonesian law.

The five conventions on intellectual property rights are the
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and
Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO); the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and
Regulation under the PCT; the Trade Mark Law Treaty; the Bern
Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works; and
WIPO Copyright Treaty.

Suraputra said the Supreme Court was compiling a list of
intellectual property rights cases to be processed.

Maulana said he hoped the council would consist of qualified
judges who have sound knowledge on trademarks, not only
international or famous trademarks but also local ones.

He said he hoped the council on intellectual property rights
would not only handle cases but also seek to end unfair
competition as stipulates in the Paris Convention. Indonesia, he
added, still discriminates between local registrar with foreign
one.

Local registrars of intellectual property rights should list
company statutes and taxpayer registration numbers, whereas
foreign registrars did not, Maulana said.

"Why are local businesspeople discriminated against?" he said.

He said that other local regulations also did not comply with
the conventions.

Maulana said a controversial instruction issued in February by
the director general of copyrights, patents and trademarks should
be canceled because it did not comply with the Trademark Law
Treaty, which regulates trademark registration.

The director general's instruction states that all trademark
renewal applications should be supported with a statement from
relevant business authorities to certify that the trademarks are
being used.

"If we have not put this simple principle into practice, what
is the use of ratifying the conventions," said Maulana who works
for the Lubis, Santosa and Maulana law firm.

Suraputra also stressed the conflict between the conventions
and national law. He declined to say whether the conventions
would overrule local law.

Chandra Darusman of the Yayasan Karya Cipta Indonesia
foundation praised the Supreme Court's decision for being
progressive.

"It is a great scheme," he said.

But not everybody praised the move.

Indonesian Legal Aid Foundation chairman Bambang Widjojanto
said the court had more urgent issues to address than the
council's formation.

"I don't say that the special councils are not important,"
Bambang said.

But, he said, the Supreme Court would spend its time more
profitably by figuring out how to improve as the last bastion of
justice.

Luhut M.P. Pangaribuan said councils' creation had been a
"reactive approach".

He said the special councils would not solve the court's
problems. "There are many more urgent issues that the court
should address," said Luhut, chairman of the Jakarta Legal Aid
Institute.

One of the most urgent issues, according to Luhut, is
empowering the Supreme Court to assess the constitutionality of
laws.