Paduka Haji Hairol Arni for bringing the CACJ to this point following the retirement
of the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi.
2.2. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon also paid tribute to the Honourable Tun Md Raus
Sharif (“Hon. Tun Md Raus Sharif”), former Chief Justice of the Federal Court of
Malaysia, and the Honourable Maria Lourdes PA Sereno, former Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of the Philippines, for their contributions to the CACJ during
their terms of service.
2.3. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon shared that the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi
and the Hon. Maria Lourdes PA Sereno had been with the CACJ from its inception
in 2013 at the first ASEAN Chief Justices Meeting (“ACJM”) that was held in a small
room. He recalled that the Hon. Maria Lourdes PA Sereno had sought the
formalisation of the ACJM through the Boracay Accord in 2015 and had hosted the
CACJ Special Meeting in Makati City in 2017. The Hon. Maria Lourdes PA Sereno
was also an enthusiastic supporter of several major projects of the CACJ.
Together with the Honourable Professor Dr Muhammad Hatta Ali, Chief Justice of
the Supreme Court of Indonesia, she had oversight of the important judicial
education and training initiatives.
2.4. Similarly, the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi was a stalwart supporter of the
CACJ and had the distinction of never missing a single meeting of the CACJ that
had been held in Singapore in 2013, Kuala Lumpur in 2014, Boracay in 2015, Ho
Chi Minh City in 2016 and Bandar Seri Bagawan and Manila in 2017. The Hon.
Sundaresh Menon said that it was the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi’s
singular belief in and commitment to the growth and development of the CACJ
cause that had paved the way for the institutionalisation of the CACJ, the
successful work of the various Working Groups and the launch of the AJP, among
others.
2.5. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon also noted that the Hon. Tun Md Raus Sharif and his
delegation, too, had supported all the initiatives of the CACJ. At the CACJ Special
Meeting in the Philippines last year, the Hon. Tun Md Raus Sharif hailed the CACJ
Page 2 of 59
as an important platform for promoting mutual understanding and solidarity
amongst ASEAN Judiciaries and emphasised that this could enhance individual
and institutional performance through the exchanges of ideas and best practices.
The Hon. Sundaresh Menon noted that under the watch of the Hon. Tun Md Raus
Sharif, Malaysia had led the CACJ Working Group on Case Management and
Court Technology and accomplished enormous work towards finalising the report.
The Hon. Sundaresh Menon concluded his tribute by saying that the CACJ owed
each of them a debt of gratitude.
2.6. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon then congratulated and welcomed their successors –
the Honourable Dato Paduka Steven Chong Wan Oon (“the Hon. Dato Paduka
Steven Chong”), Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Brunei Darussalam, and
noted that he was not able to attend the 6th CACJ Meeting, and the Honourable
Tan Sri Dato Seri Panglima Richard Malanjum (“the Hon. Tan Sri Dato Seri
Panglima Malanjum”), Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Malaysia. The Hon.
Sundaresh Menon also thanked the Honourable Antonio T Carpio, Acting Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, for his participation at the 6th
CACJ Meeting. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon shared that he had had the privilege
of knowing and interacting with each of them in a variety of capacities and said
that the CACJ looked forward to advancing their collaboration with each of them in
the years to come.
2.7. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon highlighted the CACJ’s progress from when it first
started as an informal meeting on the sidelines of the ASEAN Law Association
(“ALA”) Governing Council meeting in Singapore 5 years ago to its current status as
an accredited entity associated with ASEAN under the ASEAN Charter. He also
noted the overall progress achieved by the CACJ’s 6 Working Groups, which
covered such diverse areas comprising the Service of Civil Processes within
ASEAN, Case Management and Court Technology, Judicial Education and
Training, the AJP, Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children and the Study Group
on the Future Work of the CACJ. He thanked the Chief Justices and Judges for
making the launch of the AJP a success and expressed confidence that the AJP
Page 3 of 59
would act as a platform to foster greater judicial cooperation among the various
judiciaries.
2.8. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon added that the Working Group on the Service of Civil
Processes within ASEAN had made encouraging progress with the circulation of
the draft model rule earlier this year and he hoped that the work would pave the
way for the adoption of an ASEAN-wide document that would facilitate the service
of civil processes in all ASEAN member states on the basis of reciprocity.
2.9. He also noted the excellent progress made by the Working Group on Cross-Border
Disputes Involving Children with the establishment of good communication lines
between the judiciaries through the nomination of a judicial officer from every
member state as the point of contact to manage cross-border cases involving
children. This would pave the way for the development of a common procedure for
member states to use in such cross-border disputes.
2.10. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon shared that apart from the Working Groups, he was
also encouraged by the steps that had been taken by the CACJ to develop a
distinct identity as a community of ASEAN judiciaries and Judges, in particular, the
establishment of the standing Secretariat which had worked hard to make the 6th
CACJ Meeting a success and which would continue to contribute to the CACJ’s
future work. He acknowledged that it was through these efforts that the CACJ had
been able to liaise with other entities and organisations to advance its work.
2.11. The Hon Sundaresh Menon also expressed the CACJ’s gratitude to the Norwegian
Government for their grant of NOK3.6 million which would fund the AJP until July
2020 and looked forward to continue working with Norway in the future. He noted
that the CACJ was unable to accept the US State Department’s initial invitation for
a state visit to the United States (“US”) in May 2018, but hoped that the visit could
be rescheduled following discussions on how the CACJ could make the most out
of the visit and benefit from it.
Page 4 of 59
In this regard, the Hon. Sundaresh Menon thanked the Secretariat for coordinating
the plans with the US State Department. He suggested that besides the US, there
might be great value in holding discussions with the South Asian Judiciaries or
with the Australian Courts and the Courts of China. He proposed for a Working
Group on External Relations to be set up to identify the goals of such engagement
and to submit a proposal on which Courts would be of most interest to the CACJ.
He also noted that apart from exploring the prospect of enhancing the CACJ’s
interaction with others, the CACJ must also continue developing its own initiatives
and he therefore looked forward to the report of the Study Group on the Future
Work of the CACJ.
2.12. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon highlighted three possibilities for further development.
First, developing a set of common standards for ASEAN Judiciaries on court
management and judicial outcomes. These standards could be in the form of a
common statement of judicial principles, values and objectives which would
capture the CACJ’s core values such as respect for the rule of law, independence
of the Judiciary, promoting access to justice and facilitating efficiency in the
processes. Such a statement could be displayed on the AJP as a declaration to
the rest of the world of the CACJ’s commitment to the pursuit of justice.
2.13. Second, enhancing judicial training to support the attainment of such common
standards. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon, noted that there had been significant
papers prepared by Indonesia and the Philippines and that Singapore had
submitted a paper as well to discuss this very important strategic subject later
during the meeting. He suggested that the CACJ could establish a dedicated web
page within the AJP that would contain details of all training courses available to
Judges in the region and the entities that would provide them. This would allow the
CACJ to pool its collective resources and maximise opportunities for professional
development and training across the region. He also suggested developing a
judicial leadership training programme which would allow young judicial officers to
be sent on short placements to the Judiciaries of other member states to facilitate
learning and the exchange of ideas.
Page 5 of 59
2.14. In this respect, the Hon. Sundaresh Menon shared about the newly launched
Masters in Judicial Studies at the Singapore Management University’s School of
Law, which was the first of its kind in the region and has been designed
specifically for serving Judges and judicial aspirants. He shared that the curriculum
was jointly developed, and would be taught, by professors from the Singapore
Management University and experienced Singapore Judges. Candidates could
expect the academic rigour of higher learning and also practical lessons on Judge
craft. The hope was that this programme would meet the judicial training needs of
the region. He encouraged the CACJ members to enrol their judicial officers for this
course.
2.15. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon suggested that the third possibility was to strengthen
cooperation on substantive issues to concretise the common standards of the
ASEAN member states. In addition to the progress already made by the Working
Group on the Service of Civil Processes within ASEAN, the CACJ could explore
collaborating in other areas such as service of subpoenas, taking of evidence in
aid of foreign proceedings and judicial communications in cross-border disputes.
2.16. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon commented that these were just some of the many
possibilities that the CACJ could explore in the coming years as it contemplated
the next stage of the CACJ’s growth and development. He urged the Chief Justices
to support the formation of a new Working Group to manage external relations,
and to expand the terms of reference of some of the existing Working Groups to
cover the development of the proposed ASEAN principles of an independent
judiciary, the work on judicial education and training and the work on the service of
civil processes. He added that even as the CACJ strived to expand the reach of
these efforts, it must remain true to its core objectives.
2.17. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon reiterated the importance of fostering mutual
understanding, cooperation and collaboration that was discussed at the first
meeting of the Chief Justices in August 2013 and reaffirmed at subsequent
meetings. He stressed the need to remain steadfast in pursuing these core goals,
Page 6 of 59
which was why it was important to finalise and adopt the CACJ Charter so as to
enshrine the CACJ vision and objectives. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon remarked
on the good progress made and expressed his hope that the CACJ could adopt
the Charter with a view to each of the Chief Justices signing it by resolution, so
that the Charter could be launched officially at the next CACJ meeting. He said that
he also hoped that the CACJ could adopt the set of Rules that had also been
developed to assist in the day-to-day operation and function of the CACJ and its
activities. He stated that this would help the CACJ in maintaining the pursuit of the
CACJ’s shared vision in line with the agreements and understandings reached by
consensus at the CACJ meetings.
2.18. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon observed that the first 5 years of the CACJ were
marked by its determination to find a common ground and to develop an identity.
He proposed that the next 5 years be marked by the development of new
initiatives which would advance the CACJ’s mission to ensure that the CACJ would
be truly representative of a rule-based ASEAN community committed to promoting
a stable, prosperous ASEAN undergirded by the rule of law. He thanked the Chief
Justices again for their presence and expressed his anticipation of the prospect of
working closely with each of them in the years to come.
2.19. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon then invited the other Chief Justices to make their
opening remarks, beginning with the Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni.
2.20. The Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni thanked the Hon. Sundaresh Menon and
conveyed the Hon. Dato Paduka Steven Chong’s sincere apologies for not being
able to attend the 6th CACJ meeting. The Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni
expressed his deepest gratitude to the Hon. Sundaresh Menon and his team for
the warm and gracious hospitality in organising the 6th CACJ Meeting and the
launch of the AJP. He shared that as the previous Chair of the CACJ, Brunei
welcomed Singapore as the incoming Chair and looked forward to working
together with Singapore to build upon the good work done previously by the ACJM
Page 7 of 59
and to continue to support the CACJ in fostering a cohesive work rational that
everyone could benefit from. He also conveyed his appreciation to the CACJ
standing Secretariat for its steadfast support during Brunei’s term as the Chair of
the CACJ.
2.21. The Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni said that the establishment of the CACJ
standing Secretariat would ensure that all administrative matters and documents
were centralised, and allowed for better continuity and passing of institutional
knowledge. He added that they were extremely grateful to the CACJ Secretary,
District Judge Christine Lee, and her team, who had worked with the Brunei
Liaison Officers extensively in the last year. He also expressed his appreciation to
the Singapore Judicial College (“SJC”) for organising four 1-day workshops in 2018
which were in line with the four priority areas identified in Brunei Darussalam for
the training of Judges, namely, Intellectual Property, Insolvency, Convergence and
Harmonisation of ASEAN Commercial Laws and the Environment. He commended
Singapore for its commitment to judicial education and training and shared that
Brunei’s Judges and Judicial Officers had benefitted greatly from the workshops,
which provided them with valuable learning points and insight.
2.22. The Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni also heralded the momentous launch of the
AJP. He commented that this was a magnificent achievement by the CACJ and
that it was remarkable that such a massive project had come to fruition in such a
short space of time. He added that the AJP was deliberated 5 years ago and this
was a reflection of the CACJ’s determination to realise this goal. He thanked the
Hon. Sundaresh Menon and his team for their hard work in obtaining the funds and
developing the portal. He also recognised and thanked the AJP Working Group,
the CACJ members, the Secretariat, the Singapore Academy of Law and the
Norwegian Foreign Ministry for their concerted efforts in making the AJP a reality.
2.23. The Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni also congratulated and welcomed the newly
appointed Chief Justice of Malaysia, the Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima Richard
Page 8 of 59
Malanjum. He expressed his best wishes to the Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima
Richard Malanjum on his appointment and that he looked forward to working
together with him in the CACJ.
2.24. The Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni then paid tribute to the Hon. Dato Seri
Paduka Haji Kifrawi who had served as Chief Justice of Brunei Darussalam for 9
years. On behalf of the Brunei Judiciary, he expressed his gratitude to the Hon.
Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi for his 9 years of service as Chief Justice and 9
years earlier as Chief Registrar and intermediate Court Judge. The Hon. Dato
Paduka Haji Hairol Arni shared that the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi had
joined the Attorney-General’s Chambers in 1980 and his first stint in the Judiciary
was as Deputy Chief Registrar in 1989. The Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi
was then appointed as Attorney General in 1998 and Chief Justice in 2009. The
Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni further shared that it had been an honour and
privilege to work with the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi who was affable and
colourful.
2.25. He said that the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi’s contribution to the Brunei
Judiciary had been immense. As the first local to be appointed to the apex post of
the Brunei Judiciary, the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi was a monument of
integrity and dedication. His contribution to ALA was, without doubt, invaluable.
Notwithstanding Brunei’s small pool of legal practitioners, the Hon. Dato Seri
Paduka Haji Kifrawi was able to interest practitioners in joining ALA and in
becoming part of what was now, a strong ASEAN legal fraternity. The Hon. Dato
Paduka Haji Hairol Arni expressed the belief that the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji
Kifrawi would continue to contribute and the hope that he would be able the join
the next meeting. The Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni said that he looked
forward to a fruitful and productive deliberation at the 6th CACJ Meeting and
concluded by expressing his best wishes to the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi
for his future undertakings and retirement.
Page 9 of 59
2.26. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon thanked the Hon. Dato Paduka Haji Hairol Arni and
shared that he strongly echoed and endorsed the warm remarks made about the
Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi.
2.27. His Excellency You Ottara (“HE You Ottara”), Vice President of the Supreme Court
of the Kingdom of Cambodia, congratulated the Hon. Sundaresh Menon for his
election as the CACJ Chair. On behalf of the Kingdom of Cambodia, he expressed
his gratitude and appreciation to the Hon. Sundaresh Menon for the invitation to
attend the 6th CACJ Meeting. He conveyed greetings and appreciation from His
Excellency Dith Munty, President of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of
Cambodia, who was required to remain in the country due to the general elections
in Cambodia on 29 July 2018 and was therefore unable to attend the meeting. HE
You Ottara thanked the Hon. Sundaresh Menon for organising the meeting and for
the tremendous hospitality that Singapore has shown the Cambodian delegation.
2.28. HE You Ottara noted that since the first meeting of the ACJM in Singapore in
2013, there had been tremendous progress and cooperation amongst the
Judiciary which allowed ASEAN to live in peace and prosperity. HE You Ottara
further noted that although the Supreme Court of Cambodia had successfully
implemented many areas on judicial cooperation, especially since the Special
Meeting held in Manila last year, Cambodia still faced some challenges in fully
implementing some areas of judicial cooperation that Cambodia had agreed to.
The Cambodian delegation was, however, committed to cooperation and looked
forward to the discussions at the meeting in the spirit of constructive dialogue.
2.29. The Hon. Professor Dr Muhammad Hatta Ali conveyed his appreciation to the Hon.
Sundaresh Menon for hosting the 6th CACJ Meeting. He also conveyed his
appreciation to the CACJ members who, under the leadership of the Hon. Dato Seri
Paduka Haji Kifrawi, had worked very hard after the Bandar Seri Begawan
meeting. He also thanked the Singapore Judiciary and the CACJ Secretariat for
their hard work and persistence, without which the CACJ would not have made
such progress in such a short period of time.
Page 10 of 59
2.30. The Hon. Professor Dr Muhammad Hatta Ali added that this meeting marked the
2nd year since the CACJ was recognised as an entity associated with ASEAN. He
shared that this meeting was special as the AJP, which contained a wealth of
information on the ASEAN member states’ legal and judicial systems, had also
been launched. He said that this was a celebration of the the ASEAN Judiciaries’
strong commitment to collaboratively promote justice, peace, prosperity and
protection of human rights in the region. He further commended the efforts of the
Judiciaries in preparing their respective AJP contents. He added that having a
formal framework for cooperation would enable the CACJ to manage dialogues,
exchanges and studies more effectively, thereby providing more benefits to the
people in the region.
2.31. The Hon. Professor Dr Muhammad Hatta Ali further commented that while the
CACJ’s achievements had been significant, there was still a full agenda that
needed to be implemented and that each step would be increasingly difficult. He
expressed the view that with the progress made by the CACJ and increased
interaction within the various Working Groups, the leadership of the ASEAN
Judiciaries would need to pay more attention and dedicate more time, resources
and effort to the CACJ and its activities. He noted that the more connected the
ASEAN economies became, the bigger the challenges their legal systems would
face, and urged the CACJ to enhance cooperation amongst the ASEAN member
states. He concluded with the hope that the 6th CACJ Meeting would set another
milestone for cooperation and said that he looked forward to a fruitful dialogue.
2.32. His Excellency Khampha Sengdara (“HE Khampha Sengdara”), Vice-President of
the Supreme Court of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, expressed his
appreciation and gratitude to the Hon. Sundaresh Menon on behalf of His
Excellency Khamphanh Sitthidampha, President of the Supreme Court of the Lao
People’s Democratic Republic, for the invitation to attend the 6th CACJ meeting,
He conveyed greetings and appreciation from HE Khamphanh Sitthidampha, who
was not able to attend the meeting. HE Khampha Sengdara shared that it was his
first time attending a CACJ meeting since it was re-named from the ACJM. He
Page 11 of 59
recalled that the 1st ACJM was also held in Singapore in 2013 and that the meeting
had clearly set up the objectives and the scope of the cooperation well, which
yielded the results that the CACJ had now achieved. He briefed the meeting on the
challenges that Lao PDR, had to overcome.
2.33. HE Khampha Sengdara shared that since 2013 there had been tremendous
progress in the area of cooperation among the Judiciaries and that this had led to
close ties and friendly relationships being forged. The official launch of the AJP
was a milestone of the CACJ’s cooperation and had benefitted the Lao Supreme
Court. He explained that Lao PDR still faced challenges in implementing some of
the areas of judicial cooperation. On behalf of HE Khamphanh Sitthidampha, HE
Khampha Sengdara assured the meeting that despite these challenges, the Lao
Supreme Court would like to share in, contribute to and learn from the discussions
arising from the 6th CACJ meeting. Finally, he wished all the delegates good
health, happiness and success in their duties and for the success for the 6th CACJ
meeting.
2.34. The Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima Richard Malanjum thanked the Hon.
Sundaresh Menon and the Singapore Judiciary on behalf of the Malaysian
Judiciary, for organising the 6th CACJ meeting and the warm reception accorded to
the Malaysian delegation. He also congratulated the Hon. Sundaresh Menon for
being elected as the new CACJ Chair. He further expressed his thanks to Brunei,
the immediate past CACJ Chair. In this regard, the Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima
Richard Malanjum conveyed his best wishes to the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji
Kifrawi on his retirement. On behalf of the Honourable Tun Md Raus Sharif, the
Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima Richard Malanjum also thanked the CACJ for their
cooperation when he was the Chief Justice of Malaysia and wished the CACJ all
the best in the coming years.
2.35. The Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima Richard Malanjum shared that through the
CACJ, the ASEAN member states shared a common goal to further strengthen
their close ties and cooperation and to reaffirm the commitment in promoting
Page 12 of 59
exchanges of thought and resources among Judges and Court administration in
relation to the Judiciaries. He supported the suggestions for the CACJ to set up a
common standard, to establish a judicial training system and to have more
exchanges by the Judges and judicial staff to build up their leadership. He voiced
his support for the LLM programme but commented that there should be an option
for distance learning or part-time learning since some of the Judiciaries may not be
able to send Judges to attend the programme on a full-time basis over 2 years as
that would tax their manpower. However, financing the programme was another
factor for consideration. The Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima Richard Malanjum
shared his hope that with the launch of the AJP, there would be greater exchange
of ideas and information among the Judiciaries. He added that the private sector
should be encouraged to also participate in this interaction as it could further
enhance the cause of the CACJ.
2.36. On this note, the Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima Richard Malanjum congratulated
Singapore and in particular, Justice Lee Seiu Kin, for the hard work in launching
the AJP. The Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima Richard Malanjum shared that
Malaysia had worked on the 2 Working Groups that were assigned to them and
they would be reporting on the progress made. He also thanked Justice Lee for the
patience accorded to Malaysia during the drafting of the CACJ Charter.
2.37. The Hon. Tan Sri Dato Sri Panglima Richard Malanjum then introduced the
Malaysian delegation at the meeting – Justice Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Ahmad Bin Haji
Maarop, the new President of the Court of Appeal in Malaysia, Justice Datuk
David Wong, the new Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, Justice Dato’ Rohana
binti Yusuf, Federal Court Judge in Malaysia who was involved in the Working
Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children and Mr Edwin Paramjothy,
Special Officer. He thanked the standing Secretariat for its work and concluded by
expressing Malaysia’s commitment to the CACJ.
2.38. The Honourable Htun Htun Oo, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Union of
Myanmar, shared that he was happy to be present at the 6th CACJ meeting in
Page 13 of 59
Singapore and to meet with his judicial colleagues again. He expressed his
appreciation to the former CACJ Chair, the Hon. Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi, for
successfully discharging his duties and congratulated the Hon. Sundaresh Menon
on his appointment as the new CACJ Chair. He added that he was confident that
the Hon. Sundaresh Menon would also lead the CACJ to a better and brighter way
forward. The Hon. Htun Htun Oo also congratulated the Working Group led by the
Singapore Judiciary for their brilliant efforts in the development and launch of the
AJP, which was a testament to the unity of the ASEAN Judiciaries. He stressed
that the Judiciaries must cooperate more and work harder to be strong as a
community.
2.39. The Hon. Htun Htun Oo commented that the global issues facing ASEAN include
environmental and climate change issues and that Judges also face challenges in
adjudicating these cases in order to improve access to environment and climate
justice. He shared that the Myanmar Judiciary would be organising the Asia-Pacific
Judicial Conference on Environmental and Climate Change Adjudication which will
be held in Nay Pyi Taw, Myanmar, on 29 – 30 October 2018, and invited the Chief
Justices to attend this Conference. The Hon. Htun Htun Oo concluded by re-
iterating his great happiness to be present at the meeting and wished everyone
prosperity in the future.
2.40. The Honourable Antonio T Carpio (“the Hon. Antonio T Carpio”), Acting Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, commended the Hon. Sundaresh
Menon and the Secretariat for the excellent preparations and hosting of the 6th
CACJ Meeting. He expressed his appreciation of the AJP launch and shared that
he looked forward to the interesting sessions ahead. The Hon. Antonio T Carpio
shared that this meeting would be remembered as another building block to make
the CACJ an important institution within ASEAN. Finally, he introduced Justice
Angelene Quimpo-Sale who would be presenting during the session on the cross-
border trafficking of children.
Page 14 of 59
2.41. The Honourable Justice Slaikate Wattanapan (“Hon. Justice Slaikate Wattanapan”),
Vice-President of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Thailand, conveyed his
apologies for the absence of the Honourable Cheep Jullamon, President of the
Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Thailand, who sent his best wishes for the 6th
CACJ Meeting and considered this meeting to be an important milestone towards
a solid ASEAN legal framework. On behalf of the Thai Judiciary, the Hon. Justice
Slaikate Wattanapan, expressed his deep appreciation to the Hon. Sundaresh
Menon for the well-organised, constructive, norm-establishing and far-reaching
meeting which would certainly bring the legal framework to new heights and
achievements. He thanked the Hon. Sundaresh Menon for displaying the true
meaning of Singapore warmth and hospitality and informed that the Thai Judiciary
appreciated the warm welcome and excellent arrangements since the day of their
arrival. He added that the success of the meeting was a true manifestation of
sheer hard work and labour of love, and that the CACJ meetings demonstrated the
significance of judicial power in society and that the power was not passive in
nature. He noted that some of the discussions arising from the meetings had come
to fruition as illustrated by the official launch of the AJP. The cooperation by the
CACJ members enabled the ASEAN member states to understand and learn from
each other, and allowed each Judiciary to obtain creative ideas for initiating further
development in the respective judiciaries.
2.42. The Hon. Justice Slaikate Wattanapan commented that judiciaries of today cannot
function in silos in the international community as technological developments and
societal changes have resulted in more cross-border problems and disputes.
Mutual understanding amongst ASEAN member states was therefore required for
the Judiciaries to prevail over these new challenges. He shared that although the
ASEAN member states may have different histories, cultures, languages and legal
systems, they share the same goal which was to render justice to society. He
commented that the cooperation displayed by the CACJ members was proof that
they have maintained their focus and expressed confidence that this would
continue for the future. He further commented that the CACJ forum has allowed
the different Judiciaries to work together, thereby ensuring access to justice for all.
Page 15 of 59
He concluded with a congratulatory note to the newly appointed Chief Justices of
Brunei Darussalam and Malaysia.
2.43. The Honourable Nguyen Hoa Binh (“Hon. Nguyen Hoa Binh”), Chief Justice of the
Supreme People’s Court of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam, congratulated the
Chief Justice of Brunei and the Brunei Judiciary for a very successful year of
chairing the CACJ. He also congratulated the Hon. Sundaresh Menon on his
appointment as the Chair of the CACJ. The Hon. Nguyen Hoa Binh thanked the
Hon. Sundaresh Menon, the CACJ Secretariat, as well as the Judges and Court
officers of the Supreme Court of Singapore for the well-organised meeting. He
shared that he had enjoyed the dinner hosted by the Hon. Sundaresh Menon and
the President of Singapore the night before and was appreciative of the efforts and
contributions of the Supreme Court of Singapore in coordinating the different
activities of the CACJ. The Hon. Nguyen Hoa Binh commented that the AJP launch
was a good illustration and an excellent example of the concerted efforts and
contribution made by the Supreme Court of Singapore and the other ASEAN
Judiciaries.
2.44. The Hon. Nguyen Hoa Binh said that the Hon. Sundaresh Menon’s opening
remarks on the progress made over the 5 years showed that the commitment to
the CACJ cause has been further strengthened over time. He opined that the
CACJ is heading in the right direction and is contributing to the overall
development of the ASEAN community by promoting mutual understanding,
solidarity and unity in this region. He believed that the achievements under the
CACJ, for example, the AJP, would further enhance cooperation among the
ASEAN Judiciaries and improve the quality of judicial services provided by them.
He also opined that the proposed agenda for the 6th CACJ Meeting and the reports
of the Working Groups would be very useful to the Courts in the region. He added
that with full commitment from all the Chief Justices, the CACJ would be able to
further promote their cooperation and fulfil all the objectives in the agenda. He
concluded by reaffirming Vietnam’s commitment to the CACJ.
Page 16 of 59
3. APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CACJ MEETING HELD IN
MANILA ON 27 OCTOBER 2017
3.1. The Hon. Sundaresh Menon, Chair of the CACJ (“the Chairperson”), thanked the
Hon. Antonio T Carpio for the audio recordings of the Special Meeting held in Manila
on 27 October 2017 which enabled the minutes to be prepared. The Chairperson
noted that no objections had been raised by any of the CACJ delegations. The Hon.
Antonio T Carpio proposed the motion to adopt the minutes. The Hon. Dato Paduka
Haji Hairol Arni and HE You Ottara seconded the motion. There being no objections
or further comments, the Council approved the minutes of the Special Meeting.
4. SESSION 2 – REPORT ON THE ASEAN JUDICIARIES PORTAL (AJP)
4.1. The Chairperson invited Singapore to present on the report on the AJP.
4.2. Justice Aedit Abdullah of Singapore (“Justice Abdullah”) provided an overview of
the AJP’s characteristics and features. He shared that the landing page highlighted
the work of the AJP as well as the CACJ and would be optimised for both Personal
Computer (“PC”) browsing as well as mobile devices. He added that as some
countries would require time to provide all the required information, a holding
banner with the description “This site is being finalised by the member state” would
be inserted where appropriate.
4.3. Justice Abdullah also shared on the members-only section which he hoped would
facilitate the work of the various Working Groups and general discussions between
all the member states. The members-only section would be an internal portal or
Intranet where information, announcements and meeting documents could be
shared. It would also be a mechanism for the CACJ to send out information to all
the users within ASEAN and to send emails. This would ensure that the CACJ
does not clog up the normal email channels. The CACJ could also hive off all the
necessary information to a particular location. The AJP would also provide a
means of communication between liaison officers in each country and the CACJ
Secretariat, which would act as a knowledge management base for the future so
Page 17 of 59
that there would be a permanent record of the communications and discussions.
Justice Abdullah shared that the login process requires a username and password
through two-factor authentication, to ensure that only those who are authorised
have access to the system.
4.4. Justice Abdullah proceeded to give a brief explanation of the login process and
said that the usernames and passwords would be rolled out in due course. Justice
Abdullah informed that there would be security through a two-factor authentication
to make sure that only those who are authorised can have access to the system.
He then provided a brief description of the key features on the main page of the
AJP and members-only section. He explained that under this section, there would
be submenus, for example, for the submenu on CACJ meeting documents, there
would be a collection of the agreements, declarations, resolutions and minutes. In
this way, all the CACJ and ACJM minutes would be captured for future reference.
All the Working Groups’ documents and discussions would also be captured as
well for new Working Groups that are formed.
4.5. Justice Abdullah further explained that there would be a mode for people to be
able to communicate with each other, to have discussions within the Working
Group. This is important and may also play a role in cutting down the need for
physical meetings which will hopefully facilitate the efficiency of all the Working
Groups concerned.
4.6. Finally, the Secretariat itself would have a discussion group with the Liaison
Officers of the respective CACJ countries. In this way, the Liaison Officers could
ask questions of the Secretariat. For matters that may be a bit more sensitive or a
bit more limited in scope, the Liaison Officer can decide the audience to whom the
questions would be visible. And the Liaison Officers could then view the answers
posted by the Secretariat.
4.7. On the funding of the AJP, Justice Abdullah reported that the Norwegian funding
would sustain the AJP until July 2020. He shared that in view of this, the
Singapore Academy of Law has been tasked to explore options for self-funding
Page 18 of 59
after July 2020. He added that there are also ongoing discussions between the
CACJ Secretariat and the ASEAN Secretariat on future funding options and that
the AJP Working Group would continue to explore other possibilities. Justice
Abdullah further added that there was an indication that the Norwegians would
consider further support if the CACJ can make a case for it.
4.8. Justice Abdullah also reported that 2 member states had not been able to sign the
final Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”). He shared that the MOU needed to
be signed by the 10 Chief Justices as it sets out the roles and responsibilities for
the provision of content to the AJP. The original target for signature was 31
October 2017 but this was extended to 31 December 2017 at the last CACJ
meeting., As it was expected that more time was required, Justice Abdullah sought
the CACJ’s agreement for an extension of time until the next CACJ meeting.
4.9. Justice Abdullah further reported that the URL “cacj-ajp.org” has been registered
for the portal. To-date, content from 3 member states is still pending. The developer
of the website had been contracted to assist in the uploading of information onto
the portal but this would expire shortly. As such, the CACJ Secretariat would assist
member states to upload their website contents in the interim. There is a possibility
of getting another vendor but for efficiency, he hoped that member states could be
trained to do their own uploading. To this end, he informed that training would be
provided, with the possibility that the training could be conducted within each
ASEAN member state.
4.10. Justice Abdullah sought acknowledgement of the work of the Singapore AJP team
in coordinating and hosting the training sessions. He also asked for the CACJ’s
agreement to give the CACJ Secretariat the mandate to continue assisting the
ASEAN Judiciaries to upload their contents onto the AJP and to explore funding
options. Finally, he sought the CACJ’s agreement to extend the deadline for
signing the final MOU by the remaining 2 member states. In addressing the point
made by the Chief Justice of Malaysia about the involvement of other parties in the
Page 19 of 59
internal portal, Justice Abdullah added that it this would be discussed with the
Secretariat, which would try to work out a mechanism for this.
4.11. The Chairperson commented that under the funding arrangement with the
Norwegians, the use of the funds was audited. He proposed that a copy of the
audited report be made available to the Council each year so that the Council has
full transparency on how and where the money has been used.
4.12. He added that the Singapore Academy of Law (“SAL”) has been doing work for the
CACJ but because he is also the President of the SAL, the SAL has not and will
not be charging for that work, and will continue the present arrangement as a
service to the CACJ. The Chairperson further added that he, together with Justice
Lee Seiu Kin and Justice Aedit Abdullah, was reasonably confident that continued
funding could be obtained from the Norwegians or from other sources. He shared
that during a briefing to the Norwegian Ambassador the day before, the
Ambassador expressed satisfaction with the progress of the AJP project and
indicated willingness in principle to continue to support this work. He explained that
it was for this reason that the mandate from the CACJ was sought in order to allow
Singapore to continue to assist in arranging the future funding for this project.
4.13. The Chairperson requested for the 3 Judiciaries who had not yet submitted their
website content to provide it. He recognised that some Judiciaries may have
difficulties in doing so, as shared by Vice President Khampha Sengdara of Lao
PDR and Vice President You Ottara of Cambodia. He requested the jurisdictions
that are facing difficulties should liaise with the Secretariat who would assist as
best as they could, and work with them to find solutions to overcome the
difficulties. He explained that this was why the mandate was required as it allowed
the Secretariat to continue to assist the Judiciaries in the provision and uploading
of content for the AJP and to manage any other issues.
4.14. He further commented that the Judges are not going to be able to use the portal
unless they are trained, which was why training needed to be organised. He re-
iterated that the Portal is meant to be a window to the world but also a platform for
Page 20 of 59
the CACJ to use and increase the connectivity and communications amongst the
ASEAN member states. As such, he urged the Council to consider how the
member states could take advantage of the training programmes and the
opportunities provided.
4.15. The Chairperson led the discussion on the five resolutions that were to be included
in the proposed Singapore Declaration to give the Secretariat the mandate to
continue assisting the Judiciaries in the provision and uploading of content for the
AJP. He shared that this mandate would allow the Secretariat to work with the
judiciaries who have not submitted content to do so. He also shared on the
proposed mandate for the Secretariat to continue exploring funding options and to
extend the deadline for the execution of the MOU. As only Thailand and the
Philippines had not yet signed the MOU and it hinged on their respective internal
approvals, the Chairperson proposed to extend the deadline for the signing of the
MOU to the next CACJ meeting but also requested for it to be finalised as quickly
as possible.
4.16. In response to the Chief Justice of Malaysia’s queries, the Chairperson clarified
that there were no subscription fees for the AJP and that it was free for all CACJ
members. He further added that the Secretariat (with the assistance of the SAL)
would function as the portal’s Administrator to assist in maintaining it. In the short
term, pending the training of each member state’s officers to upload the
information themselves, the Chairperson noted Justice Abdullah’s offer for the
information to be sent to the Secretariat, who would assist to upload this onto the
AJP.
4.17. The Chairperson voiced his strong support for the proposal by the Acting Chief
Justice of the Philippines that the AJP could provide links to the websites of the
Supreme Courts of each of the ASEAN member states.
4.18. The Chief Justice of Malaysia highlighted that the University of Malaya had also
set up a portal that was similar to the AJP. Justice Abdullah noted that this had
been discussed at the last CACJ meeting where it was shared that the AJP and
Page 21 of 59
the University of Malaya’s ASEAN Legal Information Portal (“ASEAN LIP”) served
different purposes but complemented each other. He shared that the focus of the
ASEAN LIP was to provide case law for all the different jurisdictions while the AJP
was to provide a framework for the understanding of the different structures of the
ASEAN Judiciaries, and the different laws and systems of laws in each member
state. Justice Abdullah said that the AJP had been developed to provide a one-
stop shop for judiciaries or investors to have an understanding of the judicial and
legal systems of each ASEAN member state while the ASEAN LIP provided in-
depth information on case law.
4.19. The Chairperson added that the former Chief Justice of Malaysia had also raised
the same point previously and drew attention to paragraphs 4.11 to 4.13 of the
minutes of the Special Meeting where it was acknowledged that the 2 portals had
overlaps and similarities but there were also differences, and that each had a role
and a relevance. He noted that the important feature about the AJP was that it was
an official judicial website that talked about the judiciaries and provided a platform
for communication amongst the judiciaries, which sets it apart from the ASEAN
LIP. He added that the minutes also recorded the possibility of the portals having
links to each other in the future and that the AJP Working Group would continue to
explore that with Professor Chong.
4.20. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam agreed with the Acting Chief Justice of the
Philippines for the AJP to include links to the websites of the Supreme Court of
each member state. He shared his concerns about possible language barriers as
most of the ASEAN Judiciaries’ websites are in their respective local languages.
As such, this may not meet the needs of an English-speaking audience. He further
suggested for the Secretariat to develop a guide on the type of information to be
provided and the format for the information to be presented.
4.21. The Chairperson replied that although the websites would be in the local language,
it would still be useful to have the links to these websites so that when outsiders
wanted the information, they could locate the necessary information and obtain
translations if needed. He added that the Secretariat had provided templates to all
Page 22 of 59
the Judiciaries on the types of information to be uploaded and how the information
was to be organised.
4.22. There being no further comments or inputs and with the agreement of all, the
Council adopted the 5 resolutions on this agenda item.
5. SESSION 3 – REPORT ON FACILITATING SERVICE OF CIVIL PROCESSES
WITHIN ASEAN
5.1. The Chairperson invited Malaysia to present the report on Facilitating Service of
Civil Processes within ASEAN.
5.2. The Right Honourable Tan Sri Dato’ Sri Ahmad Bin Haji Maarop of Malaysia (“Tan
Sri Ahmad Maarop”) shared that he was presently heading this Working Group,
which was previously chaired by his predecessor, the Right Honourable Tan Sri
Zulkefli Makinudin. He reported that at the CACJ Meeting in Brunei in March 2017,
it was agreed that the model rule would be drafted to standardise the service of
civil processes among ASEAN member states with the hope that all member
states would adopt it on the basis of reciprocity with modifications, if necessary,
under their respective rules. It was also agreed that the terms of reference of the
Working Group on the Service of Civil Processes within ASEAN be established,
namely, to study the existing rules in each ASEAN member state that govern the
service of process between ASEAN member states on the basis of reciprocity, and
thereafter to develop a model rule for consideration by each ASEAN judiciary to
adopt. The goal was to get as much uniformity as possible. Tan Sri Ahmad Maarop
reported that pursuant to the agreed parameters at the CACJ Meeting in Brunei, a
letter was sent on 22 August 2017 to each member state to furnish the Working
Group with information and feedback on the service of foreign civil process in their
respective jurisdictions by 31 October 2017.
5.3. The Working Group thereafter conducted a comparative study of the relevant
provisions based on the responses from Brunei, Cambodia, Myanmar, the
Philippines and Singapore. A model rule was then drafted based on the provision
contained in Order 65 of the Malaysian Rules of Court 2012, which was almost
Page 23 of 59
similar to the provision contained in the Brunei and Singapore Rules of Court
relating to the service of civil process.
5.4. On 9 January 2018, a letter enclosing the draft rule was sent to all t member states
for their perusal and consideration to be adopted into their respective Rules of
Court with modification, if necessary. Since then, only Brunei, Singapore and
Vietnam had responded as follows:
- Brunei had no objections to adopting the model rule and indicated that they
would need to amend the existing rule to suit the draft model rule;
- Singapore was agreeable to adopting the draft model rule as it was
substantially similar to the provision contained in the Singapore Rules of Court
relating to Service of Foreign Civil Process; and
- Vietnam indicated some reservations to the draft model rule as the Vietnamese
Court did not have the authority to directly engage in serving the Foreign Civil
Process as proposed in the draft model rule. In addition, the Vietnamese legal
system does not allow the courts to adopt any judicial rule or procedure other
than what has been provided in the existing rule. To do so, they would need to
engage the government.
5.5. Tan Sri Ahmad Maarop shared that some of the member states gave the
feedback that the draft model rule was workable while others expressed certain
reservations. He strongly encouraged member states to support the
implementation of the model rule by modifying their current laws and practice or by
engaging their respective governments. The ultimate goal was to have a
standardised method and mechanism for the service of civil process between the
ASEAN member states through reciprocal arrangements. The paper was attached
at Tab 3 of the meeting folder.
5.6. The Chairperson said that he wished to place on record, Singapore’s heartfelt
appreciation to Malaysia for having taken the project to this point. His respectful
view was that Malaysia had taken the project as far as it could go and that there
Page 24 of 59
was nothing more that the CACJ could do with the rule to bring it any further. He
noted that the judiciaries of some member states such as Singapore, Malaysia,
Brunei and Myanmar may be able to implement the model rule while the judiciaries
of other member states such as Vietnam may not. He therefore suggested for the
CACJ to endorse the model rule and to commend it for adoption by each member
state in accordance with its respective laws and legal processes, subject to such
modifications as they deem appropriate.
5.7. The Chairperson sought the views of the other members on this. Brunei, Lao PDR,
Myanmar, the Philippines and Thailand supported the resolution to endorse the
model rule. The Vice-President of Cambodia shared his concerns that civil law
systems like Cambodia’s use terminology that may be different from common law
systems, and suggested for the model rule to also incorporate terminology which
is reflective of civil law systems. The Chairperson reiterated that the proposal was
to adopt the model rule not as a piece of legislation but as a model or a concept,
and for each jurisdiction to then adopt it in accordance with its own rules, subject
to the necessary modifications that may be required by its internal processes.
5.8. The Chief Justice of Brunei suggested for each member state to implement the
model rule at its own time. The Chairperson agreed that there would not be any
time limit for the implementation of the model rule.
5.9. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam supported the resolution to endorse the model rule
but informed that they would need to discuss it with their Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and Ministry of Justice. He further informed that Viet Nam has plans to revise their
laws in order to introduce an approach towards service of processes that is more
consistent with the common procedure.
5.10. With inputs from the Vice President of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of
Cambodia on the terminology and from the Chief Justice of Malaysia the
Chairperson proposed for the resolution to read as: The Council approves the draft
model rule on service of civil processes within ASEAN and commends it for
Page 25 of 59
adoption by each jurisdiction subject to and in accordance with its laws and legal
processes and with such modifications as each jurisdiction deems fit.
5.11. The Chief Justice of Indonesia agreed to the concept pending further discussions.
The Chief Justice of Malaysia agreed to work with any jurisdiction that needed to
clarify the meaning of the words in the model rule for the purpose of adopting it into
their own rules.
5.12. The Chief Justice of Malaysia agreed to the Chairperson’s suggestion to expand
the scope of the Working Group to study other areas on civil matters for similar
initiatives, for example, taking evidence in assistance of foreign proceedings and
facilitating the service of subpoenas. The Chief Justice of Malaysia also agreed for
Malaysia to circulate a short paper ahead of the next CACJ meeting for the Chief
Justices to consider whether there were other worthwhile areas in addition to the 2
proposed areas mentioned for which a model rule or model procedure could be
developed.
5.13. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam sought clarification on the second proposed
initiative, namely, taking evidence in civil proceedings. The Chairperson replied that
Malaysia would only identify if the proposal is a worthwhile area to study further
and would not be making any recommendations.
5.14. There being no further comments or input and with agreement by all the Council
members, the Council adopted the proposed resolutions on this agenda item.
6. SESSION 4 – UPDATE ON CASE MANAGEMENT AND COURT TECHNOLOGY
6.1. The Chairperson invited Malaysia to also present the update on Case
Management and Court Technology.
6.2. The Chief Justice of Malaysia shared that he was previously assigned to chair this
Working Group by the former Chief Justice Tun Arifin Zakaria. He highlighted that
the report of the Working Group was attached at Tab 4 of the meeting folder.
Page 26 of 59
6.3. The Chief Justice of Malaysia said that the use of technology in the courts and
case management were introduced as separate topics under separate working
groups at the CACJ meeting in 2013. Over time, both topics were merged under
one working group, for which he assumed the Chairperson’s post. He said that to-
date, the Working Group had (i) compiled the list of working group representatives
from all member states (with the exception of Lao PDR), (ii) collected data from all
member states (with the exception of Lao PDR), and (iii) identified that one of the
biggest issues was the disparity between different member states in terms of the
use of technology in the courts.
6.4. He shared that moving forward, the Working Group will compile the contents of the
individual reports which Brunei, Cambodia, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam had
prepared and submit a final report containing each member state’s best practices
on the use of technology and case management. It will then be for the member
states to consider whether or not to adopt part or all of these best practices. He
added that Datuk David Wong, Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, would now be
chairing the Working Group and would be circulating the final report.
6.5. The Chairperson thanked the Chief Justice of Malaysia for the update. He
commented that the work and report that Malaysia had put together were
extremely useful and suggested that in addition to developing a final report of best
practices, this information should be put on the CACJ website so that people could
access the information to learn about the practices in other jurisdictions. The Chief
Justice of Malaysia agreed with this suggestion.
6.6. The Chairperson suggested two further areas that were related to the field of
technology. He shared that Vietnam, Thailand, Lao PDR and Brunei had
participated in the International Framework for Court Excellence (“IFCE”) that
Singapore was very closely associated with, and that past participants of the IFCE,
which included the use of technology and case management techniques, had said
that it was extremely useful. As such, he proposed for Malaysia and the Working
Group consider if the work of the IFCE could be put forward as an encouragement
Page 27 of 59
to all the ASEAN judiciaries to study further and to assess if it would help the
CACJ in raising standards.
6.7. The Chairperson further commented that technology is going to be an ongoing
problem that we have to deal with for the rest of our lives. In view of this, he
strongly felt that the technology Working Group should be a Standing Group
instead of a project group, and to study issues such as protecting ourselves
against security threats and looking at new and potentially disruptive areas of
technology such as artificial intelligence, big data, bitcoin, blockchain technology
and emerging technologies such as cryptocurrency. He shared that Justice Lee of
Singapore would be tabling a proposal along these lines when presenting his
report on the future work of the CACJ. In summary, the Chairperson suggested for
this Working Group to:-
a) prepare a final report on best practices;
b) upload all the reports that it had received onto the AJP;
c) study if the IFCE would be a helpful tool for the ASEAN Judiciaries; and
d) expand the Working Group’s terms of reference to cover disruptive
technologies such as artificial intelligence and big data.
6.8. There being no further comments or inputs and with agreement by all the Council
members, the Council adopted the proposed resolutions on this agenda item.
7. SESSION 5 – PRESENTATION ON JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING
7.1. The Chairperson invited Indonesia and the Philippines to present on Judicial
Education and Training.
7.2. Justice Agung Sumanatha (“Justice Agung Sumanatha”) of Indonesia reported that
the Working Group had developed a Strategic Plan 2018-2025, which was
intended to be an operating strategic document to chart the aspirations of the
Page 28 of 59
CACJ and to provide direction and guidelines for the Working Group. He explained
that, by having the Strategic Plan 2018-2025, the Working Group would be able to
set milestones and develop a work plan to better focus the time and resources
required in order to achieve our goal of advancing the judicial education training
for the Judiciaries of the ASEAN member states. He shared that the proposed
vision was to have an integrated CACJ Joint Judicial Training and Education
Working Group capable of strategically identifying the most pressing needs for
judicial training and education and aligning the necessary resources to meet those
needs. The proposed mission was to strengthen the capacity of the Judiciaries of
the 10 ASEAN member states to improve cross-border cooperation and achieve
greater legal certainty for the benefit of ASEAN citizens.
7.3. Justice Agung Sumanatha explained that there are six proposed principles that
would provide the framework for joint judicial training and education programmes.
These were that the programmes would be (1) identified in a consultative manner;
(2) programmatic; (3) participatory; (4) flexible; (5) accessible and (6) supported by
the judicial leaders and the senior judiciary. He added that the following proposed
objectives would serve as the basis for measuring the programmes and provide
the Working Group with clear guidelines. These were (1) to establish the capacity of
the Working Group; (2) to identify existing capacities of the judiciaries of each
ASEAN member state; (3) to identify opportunities for Joint Judicial Training and
Education Programmes; (4) to provide opportunities for sharing good practices; (5)
to establish a mechanism for information sharing; and (6) to establish capacity to
support and mobilise available resources.
7.4. Justice Agung Sumanatha recalled that in 2017, the four priority areas previously
identified, were based on the surveys conducted by the Working Group, namely,
business and commercial law, cross-border criminal law, environmental law and
civil procedural law. In addition to these four priority areas, Justice Agung
Sumanatha proposed incorporating the area of leadership and management
development through exchange of experiences and comparative studies.
Page 29 of 59
7.5. He also proposed that a general framework be formulated which included needs
assessment and analysis, to ensure that the training and education programmes
were implemented in systematic way different training and education methods,
promoting participative and exchange learning, training the trainers, involving
judicial leaders to ensure sustainability, and conducting post-training evaluation to
collect feedback for gradual improvement of future training and education
programmes which could improve the programme structure.
7.6. Justice Agung Sumanatha informed that the Working Group had also formulated
the scope of work to include (1) assessing training requirements and identifying
training topics; (2) coordinating and conducting training programmes and other
capacity-building initiatives; (3) conducting periodic reviews and developing annual
work plans; (4) coordinating with the AJP Working Group to ensure accessibility of
information; and (5) reporting periodically on the progress of these items to the
CACJ.
7.7. Justice Agung Sumanatha suggested the formation of Working Group
Committees, consisting of representatives from each ASEAN member state to
manage the technical issues in preparing and implementing the training and
education programmes. In order to strengthen coordination and improve
effectiveness, the Working Group should hold regular meetings, report on the
progress based on the annual work plan and raise other strategic issues where
necessary. The Working Group would compile the records of the meetings and the
decisions that are made and report them to the annual CACJ meeting. As the
CACJ continues progressing, it had become an important platform to strengthen
the rule of law in ASEAN. Hence, it was anticipated that the CACJ and the
Judiciaries of individual member states will receive proposals to partner or
collaborate with dialogue partners and other organisations.
7.8. Justice Agung Sumanatha expressed his great appreciation of the commitment of
the ASEAN member states to participate in initiating and implementing training
and education programmes under the CACJ. On the issue of resource
mobilisation, he proposed (1) that the Working Group or individual member states
Page 30 of 59
could identify and raise internal and external resources to implement training and
education programmes; and (2) that the Working Group could organise ad-hoc
meetings among potential partners to discuss possible opportunities for
cooperation to implement the programmes. He stressed that external resources
would only be utilised if they were based on the priorities agreed upon in the
annual work plan. As the Strategic Plan would ideally serve as a living document, it
may still be amended when necessary and as agreed by the CACJ. Justice Agung
Sumanatha concluded his presentation with a request for the Council’s views and
inputs.
7.9. The Acting Chief Justice of the Philippines reported that the Philippines had
submitted their report on what the Philippines was doing on Judicial Education. He
proposed that Indonesia’s report be provided to the heads of offices or centres that
oversee judicial education and training in each ASEAN country so that they could
come up with a plan on how they could cooperate with each other.
7.10. The Chairperson thanked Justice Agung Sumanatha for the excellent strategic
report and expressed his deep gratitude to Indonesia for putting it together. He
also endorsed the suggestion made by the Acting Chief Justice of the Philippines
but added that the training would need to be pegged at two levels – the strategic
level and the implementation level. He explained that Indonesia’s report was
thinking of judicial education and training at the strategic level but that the Council
also needed to consider judicial education and training at the implementation level.
He said that the Council needed to encourage those in charge of judicial training in
each of our judiciaries to look at the report and think of how they could work with
Indonesia and the Philippines to implement the imperatives that are set out in the
strategic report as well as to provide the necessary resources. He added that
some of the programmes identified were excellent and that these should be
communicated to the strategic group who would recommend them as good
programmes for the judicial education and training academies in ASEAN member
states to use as part of their curriculum.
Page 31 of 59
7.11. The Chief Justice of Malaysia asked if it was possible for there to be exchange of
training opportunities between member states, that is, for the judicial education
and training academies of member states to invite participants from other member
states to attend training events that they organise. The Chairperson shared that
Singapore had organised four training sessions on different areas which had been
agreed on by the Council. He said that the only problem was that the response
from other member states had not been as enthusiastic as we had hoped. The
Chairperson shared that anyone could offer to host these training events. He
encouraged for these training programmes to be made available to all Judiciaries
through the AJP. The Chief Justice of Malaysia asked if the training events were
confined to the Superior Courts or whether they will include the Lower Courts as
well. The Chairperson replied that the training events would include the Lower
Courts as well.
7.12. The Chairperson confirmed that all the Council members agreed to Indonesia’s
Strategic Plan and the proposal made by the Acting Chief Justice of the
Philippines. He asked the Liaison Officers of Indonesia and the Philippines to work
with the Secretariat on the appropriate language to be included in the Singapore
Declaration for this agenda item.
7.13. The meeting then adjourned for lunch.
7.14. After the lunch break, the Chairperson invited Assistant Registrar Scott Tan of
Singapore (“AR Scott Tan”) to present on the proposal put forward by the
International Council for Commercial Arbitration (“ICCA”) in conjunction with the
Singapore Judicial College (“SJC”).
7.15. AR Scott Tan briefed the Council that the proposal is to provide training in 2019
and 2020 to ASEAN Judges on international arbitration and the New York
Convention and the proposal was in two parts. The first part is a foundational
course that would be organised along the lines of a 2 to 3-day judicial colloquium
to be held in Singapore. Day 1 would focus on international arbitration in general
and Day 2 would focus on the New York Convention on the recognition and
Page 32 of 59
enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. The second part of the proposal would be a
follow-up 1-day training session in the various ASEAN member states to provide
more detailed analysis and training on the New York Convention and particular
provisions thereof.
7.16. AR Scott Tan elaborated that the first day of the foundational training course,
which was also the judicial colloquium, would consist of plenary seminar sessions
on international arbitration law with a specific emphasis on matters relating to or
arising out of the ASEAN region. The second day would consist of workshop
sessions explaining particular provisions of the New York Convention in greater
detail and discussions on ASEAN-specific issues. He shared that it is presently
envisaged that the judicial colloquium would be held in Singapore. He further
added that the ICCA had asked that no course fees be charged and the SJC had
acceded to this. As such, participants would only need to bear their own travelling
costs to Singapore and incidental expenses arising out of their stay for the duration
of the training. He thus sought the Council’s acknowledgement of the proposal and
the agreement to authorise Singapore to work with ICCA and the SJC to
implement the proposal and, thereafter, to put it forward to the CACJ for
implementation.
7.17. The Chairperson shared that the ICCA is the world’s leading group of arbitration
experts and part of their mission is to promote knowledge of arbitration issues. The
focus on the New York Convention was to try to promote consistency in the
implementation of the New York Convention across the world. He added that the
two-part programme is important as they want to spend the first part doing basics
with everybody; and for the second part, they would go to each of the ASEAN
member states to continue the training in the respective ASEAN member states.
When they travel to the ASEAN member states, there would not be any costs
involved as the trainers would bear their own expenses. The Chairperson added
that for the 2-day judicial colloquium held in Singapore, Singapore would bear the
hosting costs.
Page 33 of 59
7.18. In response to a query from the Chief Justice of Malaysia, the Chairperson clarified
that Singapore would not be charging any course fees and the participants would
only need to cover their travel and accommodation costs. The SJC would host the
meals during the training. The CACJ Secretariat would also provide a list of a
range of affordable accommodation options. The Chairperson also clarified with
the Acting Chief Justice of Brunei that the training would include District Court
Judges and any ASEAN Judge who has had the occasion to deal with arbitration
matters in their respective jurisdiction. He explained that the idea was to reach out
to the ASEAN Judges who are dealing with arbitration matters. The Chairperson
opined that it was a worthwhile proposal to raise standards as the course would be
conducted by experts who are willing to conduct the training in Singapore and also
the follow-up country-specific training in each of the ASEAN countries.
7.19. There being no further comments or input and with agreement by all the Council
members, the Council approved the proposed 2 resolutions on this agenda item.
8. SESSION 6 – UPDATE ON CROSS-BORDER DISPUTES INVOLVING
CHILDREN
8.1. The Chairperson invited the Philippines and Singapore to present the update on
Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children.
8.2. Justice Debbie Ong (“Justice Ong”) from Singapore shared that the Working Group
had affirmed the work and core aim of the family courts. The Working Group had
pondered on what they were really trying to achieve and agreed that it was to help
each other to help our children. Hence, the Working Group agreed that it’s role was
to see how we can help each other and how we can cooperate to help our children
within our ASEAN jurisdictions who are caught in family disputes.
8.3. She recapped the milestones achieved by the Working Group which included four
Working Group meetings and the establishment of a first point of contact. She
elaborated that having this first point of contact enables members to share and
exchange information and to discuss what training is needed for jurisdictions to
cooperate with one another to help the families, for example, through cross-border
Page 34 of 59
mediation. In line with this, each country had agreed to designate a Point of Liaison
(“POL”) who would be the first point of contact between the ASEAN member states
when a child-related dispute involved multiple jurisdictions. The POL allowed us to
have an address or an email of a contact, so that we would know how to reach out
to those jurisdictions. She further shared that at the 4th Working Group meeting in
Manila in 2017, it was agreed that the contact list would be uploaded on the AJP’s
members-only section.
8.4. Justice Ong also shared that the first ASEAN Family Judges Forum (“AFJF”) was
also held in Manila in 2017 and that the training focused on mediation. The AFJF
was organised by the Family Justice Courts and the Singapore Mediation Centre,
with assistance from the Philippines Judicial Academy and the Syariah Court of
Singapore. Two Singapore trainers flew to Manila and conducted the very
interesting and very lively training session. The participants found the session very
useful and very informative and were keen to have a next AFJF, possibly on
mediation.
8.5. Justice Ong reported that the 5th Working Group meeting was held on 26 July
2018. The Working Group had talked about the Point of Liaison being the first point
of contact and agreed to look to mediation as the approach to solving these
problems, rather than for the cases to go right into adjudication. Mediation was
therefore foremost on their minds and in their discussions. The Working Group
agreed for a common procedure to be adopted and that each country could use as
the common procedure as it thought appropriate in accordance with each
country’s legal system and processes. In order to make this common procedure
more useful, the meeting discussed further refining it and exploring how it could be
applied in practice and used at the next AFJF training. The Working Group noted
that although our countries are quite diverse, we have the same problems.
Therefore, the members would like to come together to see how they could make
a connection with each other.
Page 35 of 59
8.6. The Working Group also talked about its Country Profile template and took note
that quite a number of the member countries were already ready with their
template and agreed to upload this into the AJP. The members also discussed
about expanding each member state’s country profile to include case flow so that it
could be used to help each member country understand where mediation fits into
our respective court processes in the various jurisdictions. Finally, the meeting also
discussed coming up with a Code of Conduct and Protocol for mediators in cross-
border mediation, with the Philippines and Singapore taking the lead to develop
the first draft.
8.7. Justice Ong further reported that the 2nd AFJF would be held in Singapore on 28
March 2019, a day before the conference or symposium that Singapore and The
Hague Conference are organising on the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction in Singapore. She shared that with the running dates,
participants from the ASEAN member countries could stay for two days and meet
with a wider network of judges who are involved in the conference or symposium.
Justice Ong also shared the Working Group’s hope that the 2nd AFJF on 28 March
2019 will focus on mediation, to build upon the training that participants had
undergone at the 1st AFJF in 2017. So the intention was to have a 2-day
programme on the 28th and 29th of March 2019.
8.8. Judge Angelene Quimpo-Sale of the Philippines (“Judge Quimpo-Sale”) presented
on the Philippines’ experience regarding the 1980 Convention on the Civil Aspects
of International Child Abduction. She shared that even though the Working Group
focused on cross-border disputes involving child abduction, only Singapore,
Thailand and the Philippines had acceded to the Convention, with the Philippines
being the most recent country to do so.
8.9. Judge Quimpo-Sale shared that the Philippines Senate concurred with the
Convention on 1 February 2016. The instrument of accession was deposited with
The Hague Permanent Bureau on 16 March 2016. The Convention entered into
force in the Philippines on 1 June 2016. To-date 10 countries have already
Page 36 of 59
accepted their accession. The Philippines was not yet able to implement the
Convention but they have a central authority and the central authority is in charge
of preparing everything for the implementation of the Convention. This was the
Department of Justice and they have a core group in the Department of Justice
working on this. Since then, they have been drafting the law, the Executive Order
and the special Rules of Court to implement the Convention and govern the cases
under the Convention with the target submission dates in 2019. She shared that
while the Philippines prepared to implement the Convention, they continued
applying domestic law and included mediation as part of the rules of procedure in
civil and family cases.
8.10. Judge Quimpo-Sale acknowledged that there were certain provisions under their
Family Court that might prevent the smooth implementation of The Hague
Convention. For example, there was a provision under the Family Court that no
child below 7 years old should be separated from its mother, so the child would
always be with the mother; the father cannot have any parental authority over the
child and physical custody of the child unless there were material issues like
violence being brought up. In the interim, the Judiciary was also exploring
mediation as a mode of settlement of disputes.
8.11. Judge Quimpo-Sale shared that the Philippines has its own domestic laws and that
mediation was included as a part of the rules of procedure in civil cases and was
practiced in family cases. She further shared that the reality was that they have a
lot of cross-border child abduction cases from the ASEAN region and also from
outside ASEAN like Japan and the US. Under the traditional implementation of The
Hague Convention, when there is a request for the child to be brought back to the
country of habitual residence, the central authority would try to locate where the
child was within the country. Once they located the child, they would give the child
back to the country where the taking-away parent started. This was very traumatic
for the child and there is no mechanism for hearing what the child wants to say. If it
was a matter of determining what is the place of habitual residence of the child,
then it becomes just procedure. However, with mediation between the parties, they
Page 37 of 59
would be made to consider what is in the best interests of the child. In doing so, it
would set a procedure that would not be traumatic for the child and civil for the
parents as it allowed for them to be able to communicate with each other.
8.12. Judge Quimpo-Sale also shared that the Philippines is currently exploring two
levels of mediation – first at the stage of the central authority when the complaint
was lodged and second, once the complaint has been filed with the Courts then
mediation could still be an option.
8.13. She concluded that the Philippines’ membership of and commitment to the CACJ
and the AFJF is an affirmation of the need to coordinate and collaborate with one
another in cases involving children, in order to uphold the best interests of the
child.
8.14. Justice Ong sought the Council’s acknowledgement of the Working Group’s
continued progress on agreeing to a common procedure, which included having
the point of liaison, facilitating mediation, developing the code of conduct and
protocol, adopting the country profiles and holding the 2nd AFJF in Singapore in
March 2019.
8.15. The Chairperson queried if all the ASEAN member states had agreed to the
common procedure. Justice Ong replied that all the members had agreed to the
common procedure and that members who were prepared to start using the
common procedure, could do so. For those members who had raised some
questions on parts of the common procedure, the Working Group would continue
to work to refine those parts. Justice Ong confirmed that it is up to each member
state to implement the common procedure on a case-by-case basis. The
Chairperson proposed to modify the language in the resolution to reflect that while
it was not mandatory to apply the common procedure, all Judiciaries are
encouraged to do so.
8.16. In response to the Chairperson’s further query, Justice Ong confirmed that only an
acknowledgement was sought for the code of conduct and protocol and for
Page 38 of 59
Singapore to host the 2nd AFJF. She also confirmed that all member states have
agreed to complete the country profile template.
8.17. The Chief Justice of Malaysia raised the concern that Malaysia might not be able
to fulfil all the terms and requirements of the common procedure where Syriah
cases are concerned. This concern was shared by Indonesia and Brunei. The
Chairperson clarified that the common procedure was to be applied “where
appropriate”, such as in the civil courts. In cases where it involved a Syariah matter
and it cannot be dealt with by the common procedure, then it would not be used.
The Chief Justice of Malaysia and the Acting Chief Justice of Brunei agreed to the
phrasing of the acknowledgment. The Vice-President of the Supreme Court of Lao
PDR informed that Lao PDR was not yet a party to The Hague Convention. The
Chairperson assured him that Lao PDR could still support the common procedure
even though it was not a member of the Convention. The Chairperson emphasised
that the acknowledgment of the common procedure did not have anything to do
with requiring or urging countries to become a party to The Hague Convention.
8.18. There being no further comments or input and with the agreement of all the
Council members, the Council approved the proposed resolutions on this agenda
item.
9. SESSION 7 – REPORT ON THE STUDY GROUP ON THE FUTURE WORK OF
THE CACJ
9.1. The Chairperson invited Singapore to present the report of the Study Group on the
Future Work of the CACJ.
9.2. Justice Lee Seiu Kin of Singapore (Justice Lee”) reported that the Study Group had
been tasked at the Manila meeting in October 2017 to draft the CACJ Charter and
an action plan on areas that the CACJ could undertake in the next 5 years. The
Study Group was also tasked to liaise with the ASEAN Secretariat on how the
CACJ could fit into the ASEAN structure, to explore how future operations of the
CACJ could be funded and to explore possible collaborations and partnerships
Page 39 of 59
with other entities to further the objectives of the CACJ. The CACJ had agreed for
the Study Group to meet in Singapore in March 2018 to finalise the report on the
Future Work of the CACJ by June 2018 for consideration by the CACJ at the 6th
CACJ Meeting and to finalise the CACJ Charter for signing by the 10 ASEAN
Chief Justices at this meeting.
9.3. Justice Lee reported that eight countries, namely, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand and Viet Nam had attended the 2nd Study
Group meeting held in March 2018 in Singapore. The meeting was extremely
fruitful as almost all the provisions of the Draft Charter were agreed upon. There
was also consensus on all the provisions of the draft rules and on the future
projects which the CACJ could undertake. The report, including the Draft Charter
and Rules, had been circulated to all Study Group members on 5 June 2018, and
was also attached in the meeting folder provided.
9.4. Justice Lee shared that three provisions of the Charter could not be finalised at the
meeting in March 2018. However, as he was recently informed that Malaysia no
longer objected to these provisions, the Draft Charter was now ready for
agreement by the CACJ, subject to the views of Lao PDR and the Philippines, who
were not represented at the Study Group meeting.
9.5. Justice Lee proposed that if the Charter was approved, the Secretariat would
arrange for the Charter to be sent to the Chief Justices for their signature so that
the Charter could be ready to be launched at the next CACJ meeting.
9.6. Justice Lee also shared that the Charter provided for the adoption of Rules that
would govern the operation of the Secretariat. He reported that the Working Group
had approved the Rules, subject to the inputs from Lao PDR and the Philippines.
He shared that the Rules would come into effect only after the Charter had been
formalised. Justice Lee proposed for the CACJ to approve that the Rules take
effect as working rules in order to govern the operation and functions of the
Secretariat until the Charter formally comes into force.
Page 40 of 59
9.7. In response to Justice Lee’s request for their views, the Vice President of Lao PDR
agreed to the proposed Charter and apologised for their absence at the 2nd Study
Group meeting. In his response, the Acting Chief Justice of the Philippines
requested for 2 weeks to discuss it with his colleagues, which the Chairperson
agreed to. The Chairperson also suggested that the Declaration would state: The
Chief Justices will note the finalised Charter subject to further comments from the
Philippines to be furnished by the end of August. The Chairperson added that
subject to that, the Council could agree that upon the Philippines confirming that it
was agreeable to the Charter and the Rules, the Secretariat could take steps for
the Charter and the Rules to be signed by each of the Chief Justices with a view to
it being formally launched at the next CACJ meeting. The Acting Chief Justice of
the Philippines agreed to this proposal.
9.8. The Chief Justice of Malaysia sought clarification on whether Article 5 of the
Charter referred to a formal withdrawal or an expression of intention. Justice Lee
explained that the article was included to give flexibility to any member who
wished to withdraw from the Council as membership in the Council is voluntary.
The Chairperson added that it was framed such that if a member expresses such
an intention to withdraw from the Council, efforts can be made to persuade that
member not to withdraw. Taking into account the Chief Justice of Malaysia’s query
on what would happen in the interim, the Chairperson proposed to re-phrase the
article to read: “declare his or her intention to withdraw from the Council at the
expiry of 30 days”. In response to the query from the Chief Justice of Malaysia on
whether it should be “its” or “his or her”, Justice Lee also responded that since
membership of the Council is of the Chief Justices, and not the member state or
the Judiciary, it should be “his or her”. The Chairperson highlighted that Article 2 of
the Charter made it clear that the members of the Council are the Chief Justices of
the ASEAN member states.
9.9. Justice Lee reported that the other task of the Study Group was to propose
projects for the CACJ to undertake. He shared that the Working Group proposed
to develop an ASEAN vision for the ASEAN Judiciaries in the form of a Judiciary
Page 41 of 59
Model/Framework which would include a Code of Conduct for Judges. The
objective of this proposal is to promote the image of the ASEAN Judiciaries and to
serve as a guide for all ASEAN Judiciaries to aspire to attain. The standards could
be posted on the AJP to serve as a declaration by the ASEAN Judiciaries that
these were the standards which the ASEAN Judges aspire towards. The exact
language of the vision would have to be worked out by the Study Group.
9.10. The Chief Justice of Malaysia shared that Malaysia has a Code of Conduct for
Judges in their legislation and if so, that would need to be taken into account. The
Chairperson responded that the Declaration was framed as “to develop an ASEAN
vision for the ASEAN Judiciaries in the form of a Judiciary model or framework”
and suggested adding the phrase “which could include a Code of Conduct”. He
added that the CACJ should have an ASEAN-specific vision which could be similar
to the Bangalore Principles but more specifically suitable to the ASEAN
environment. The Chief Justice of Malaysia and all the Council members agreed to
the proposal.
9.11. Justice Lee shared that the second proposal was to engage dialogue partners. He
likened it to the ASEAN Plus Three and ASEAN Plus Five for the political ASEAN
meetings. The Study Group proposal was for the CACJ meetings to include
dialogue partners such as Australia, China and India who are neighbouring
countries and US and European Union who are further afield and also important
neighbours further afield such as the US and European Union. The objective
would be to build and strengthen international partnerships between ASEAN and
these important neighbours, to exchange views on common issues, share best
practices, facilitate judicial cooperation beyond the ASEAN, and leverage on the
dialogue partners’ expertise and experience in areas such as judicial education
and training and Court technology. As such, it was proposed for a new “Working
Group on ASEAN+ meetings” to be formed. He added that the proposed visit to the
US could fall under the purview of this Working Group.
Page 42 of 59
9.12. The Chairperson commented that it would be very useful to have a Working Group
that was focused on identifying what the CACJ hoped to gain from engagements
with other judiciaries. He recalled last year’s discussion with the US, where it was
not clear what the CACJ would achieve from that visit. By having a group that is
focused on such engagement, it would be very beneficial for the CACJ. The new
Working Group could also explore other possible dialogue partners that the CACJ
would like to have meetings with and to ensure there was value and benefit in
these meetings.
9.13. In response to a query from the Chief Justice of Malaysia, the Chairperson
confirmed that the partnership would be in loose terms. The Working Group would
come up with proposals on who the CACJ should interact with, and for what
purpose. When planning, the Working Group would also take into account the
relationship between the ASEAN member states and the potential dialogue partner
as there might be sensitivities involved.
9.14. The Chief Justice of Myanmar suggested expanding the field of work of the Study
Group on the Future Work of the CACJ instead of forming a new Working Group.
The Chairperson explained that the Study Group on the Future Work of the CACJ
was already looking at quite a lot of things and that it would be useful to have a
specific group to look at the CACJ’s external relations. The Chief Justice of
Myanmar responded that in such case, he had no objections.
9.15. As there were no further concerns raised, the Chairperson shared that he had had
a word with the Vice-President of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Thailand to
inquire if Thailand would agree to take the lead on this. The Vice-President of the
Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Thailand shared that he approved of the
proposal and would like to cooperate with the Chairperson. However, he had to
consult the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Kingdom of Thailand.
However, he agreed to accept the proposal subject to approval from the Chief
Justice.
Page 43 of 59
9.16. Justice Lee reported that the next proposal was for a training portal to be
developed and for the AJP to function as a marketplace for countries to post
information on the availability of training slots and sponsor details. He added that
this had been discussed earlier with Indonesia and they had agreed to it.
9.17. Justice Lee also shared on the proposal for setting up a Judicial Leadership
Programme, which will be a multi-tiered leadership development programme. For
example, participants can meet in alternate months in different ASEAN countries
to promote understanding and to promote networking amongst the different
judiciaries. They can also engage in talks on topics such as judicial temperament
or judicial propriety in the various host countries. The objective of the programme
will be to identify and develop future leaders of the ASEAN Judiciaries. These
future leaders can foster ties amongst themselves so that when they move up in
the hierarchy, they will be in a better position to cooperate with each other. It was
thus proposed for the Working Group on Judicial Education and Training to take
up this idea to see if it could be developed. The Chairperson noted that it is already
in the strategic plan.
9.18. Justice Lee presented on the final proposal for a mandate to be given to the CACJ
Secretariat and the Indonesian CACJ Judiciary representative to develop a
dialogue with the ASEAN Secretariat. The objective was to explore how the CACJ
could fit into the ASEAN structure, to explore possible avenues for funding and
other resources to support future CACJ endeavours and to fund jurisdictions which
encounter difficulties in participating in CACJ activities, particularly in Working
Group meetings.
9.19. The Chairperson commented that this was a very good proposal and that the
CACJ should engage with the ASEAN Secretariat to understand how the CACJ
could utilise their funding resources and institutional support for activities. The
Chairperson suggested for one of the Indonesian judges to assist the CACJ
Secretariat in developing a dialogue with the ASEAN Secretariat, subject to the
agreement of the Chief Justice of Indonesia.
Page 44 of 59
9.20. There being no further comments or input and with agreement by all the Council
members, the Council approved the proposed resolutions on this agenda item.
10. SESSION 8 – NEW PROPOSALS AND INITIATIVES
10.1. The Chairperson invited Singapore to present on the new proposals and initiatives.
ONLINE REPOSITORY OF LANDMARK ASEAN CASES
10.2. Justice Lee shared that the first initiative was to develop an online repository of
landmark ASEAN cases to be made available on the AJP. The repository would
allow each ASEAN Judiciary to upload their landmark cases onto the AJP in order
to provide information and general awareness about the developments on specific
areas of laws in their respective jurisdictions. He envisioned for these cases to be
collated in the future so that law wrap sessions or panel discussions may be
conducted on the sidelines of future CACJ meetings and to also provide a platform
to update the CACJ on landmark cases of the ASEAN region.
10.3. To reduce the scope of the cases, Justice Lee proposed to focus on the more
strategic areas of law such as intellectual property rights enforcement, bankruptcy
and insolvency, convergence and harmonisation of ASEAN commercial laws and,
perhaps, environmental laws. Any other proposals to add any other topics can also
be considered. Each ASEAN Judiciary will be responsible for the copyright of the
cases that will be uploaded and will provide a brief summary or commentary to
highlight the key points of each case. All cases and briefing notes must be
provided in English with each ASEAN judiciary being responsible for providing the
English translation of all the materials submitted. The CACJ Secretariat will work
with the liaison officers of each member state for the submission of their respective
landmark cases and the accompanying summary or commentary highlighting the
key points of each case. The CACJ Secretariat would then assist the member
states to upload the landmark cases and summary or commentary onto the AJP.
Prior to the next CACJ meeting, and following the uploading of the cases, the
CACJ Secretariat would work with the SJC to collate the cases and to arrange for
law wrap sessions or panel discussions as part of the SJC’s programmes or at the
Page 45 of 59
sidelines of the next CACJ meeting to highlight the developments brought about
by these landmark cases.
10.4. The Chairperson invited the Council members to provide their comments on this
proposal. The Philippines and Brunei agreed to the proposal.
10.5. The Chief Justice of Myanmar shared that Myanmar would try to upload available
landmark cases onto the AJP in their local language. Uploading of the English
version would require further steps to be taken. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam and
the Vice President of the Supreme Court of Cambodia also echoed the same
concern, sharing that they faced language barriers and required time to translate
the cases into English and provide them to the Secretariat. The Vice-President of
the Supreme Court of Cambodia added that it would not be easy to translate the
cases from the Khmer language into the English language, and that there would
be discrepancies in the meaning of the words when translated from the Khmer
language into the English language.
10.6. The Chief Justice of Viet Nam also added that a translator who is legally qualified
to undertake the translation would be required to ensure that the correct idea or
the correct spirit of the judgment is conveyed in the translation. He noted that
resources will also be required to translate the documents. As such, he suggested
for the non-English speaking countries to provide the link to the landmark case or
judgment, and for anyone who requires a translation of the case or judgment to
undertake the responsibility for the English translation of the case.
10.7. In addressing the query from the Chief Justice of Viet Nam on the criteria for
selecting landmark cases with precedential value, the Chairperson replied that
landmark cases referred to Supreme Court decisions that provide guidance on
how certain issues are dealt with. He added that the particular areas of importance
initially would be intellectual property (as that would be of interest to investors),
bankruptcy or insolvency, commercial laws and environmental law.
10.8. Justice Takdir Rahmadi of Indonesia also agreed with the proposal after clarifying
with the Chairperson that it would be up to each member state to decide on which
Page 46 of 59
are the cases to be uploaded and that this would not be subject to review by the
AJP Working Group. The Chief Justice of Malaysia also agreed with the proposal
after clarifying with the Chairperson that the choice of cases was not limited to the
4 priority areas highlighted by Justice Lee. The Chief Justice of Malaysia
suggested that constitutional cases might also be added to this list.
10.9. The Chairperson commented that this proposal was something that the CACJ
encouraged all the jurisdictions to do but that it was not an obligation. He added
that the Chief Justice of Viet Nam had made an excellent refinement by
suggesting that any country that preferred to upload a web-link to the judgment
could do so, instead of uploading the judgment itself, so that parties who were
interested in the judgement could look it up. This could further develop the portal.
ANNUAL MEETING OF WORKING GROUPS ON THE SIDELINES OF THE
CACJ MEETINGS
10.10. Justice Lee said that the next proposal was for an annual meeting of the Working
Groups at the sidelines of the CACJ meetings. He shared that the CACJ agenda
had grown and that it was taking much longer to resolve all the issues on the
agenda. He noted that if all or as many of the issues as possible could be dealt with
by the senior officials at the Working Group level, this would greatly help to
expedite the CACJ meetings.
10.11. He added that when Working Groups have ad hoc meetings at different times of
the year, it becomes more expensive or more difficult for all countries to attend. As
most of the members of the Working Groups attend the CACJ meetings, he
proposed to have Working Group meetings on the sidelines of the CACJ meetings,
like what the Working Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children have
been doing. The objective was to allow each Working Group to have maximum
attendance on an annual basis so that the work could be done with the benefit of
the widest range of views from all the countries. In summary, if the Working Group
meetings were held at the sidelines of the CACJ meeting, it would help to save
time and the costs of having to organise separate Working Group meetings.
Page 47 of 59
10.12. The Chairperson suggested 2 qualifications to the proposal. First, the Working
Groups should, as far as possible, continue to progress their work by email and
any electronic means so that they can continue to work virtually as much as
possible. This will also ensure that it does not become the case that they only
meet once a year for the physical meeting. Second, the physical meeting should
be convened only “if necessary”. If the matters could be resolved through virtual
means and it is not necessary for the Working Group to meet physically, then it
was not obligatory that the Working Group must meet once a year.
10.13. Justice Lee concurred and shared that for the Study Group on the Future Work of
the CACJ and for the other Working Group, communication has always been by
email and as far as possible, issues with the proposals are also resolved by email.
10.14. The Chairperson commented that he was just reminded by Brunei that email was
out of date because the Working Groups could now work through the portal as well.
10.15. The Chief Justice of Malaysia enquired if there were restrictions on whether the
Working Groups could meet other than at the sidelines of the CACJ meetings. The
Chairperson replied that the proposal was only a suggestion and not meant to be a
restriction. He added that if the Working Group meetings were tied to the CACJ
meetings, it would reduce costs for the members and would probably result in
better attendance. He added that the experience of the stand-alone physical
meetings had been very bad.
10.16. There being no further comments or input and with agreement by all the Council
members, the Council approved the adoption of the proposed resolutions on this
agenda item.
PREPARING FOR DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY
10.17. Assistant Registrar Justin Yeo from Singapore Mr (“AR Justin Yeo”) reported that
the third proposed initiative by Singapore would come under the auspices of the
existing Working Group on Case Management and Court Technology. He shared
that we are witnessing unparalleled, complex, multi-dimensional changes brought
Page 48 of 59
about by technology. We are witnessing a growing gap between emerging
technologies on the one hand and legal oversight of these technologies on the
other. Historically, law has always played catch-up with technological
advancements and will continue to do so. So, in practical terms, when matters
involving technology come before a Judge, the Judge often finds himself or herself
in a difficult position of having to apply old rules to radically different and new
circumstances.
10.18. AR Justin Yeo cited 3 areas. First, in the age of the Internet of Things and Big
Data, the law was struggling with issues of information flow and privacy and also
straining to police an information superhighway that had little regard for national
boundaries. Second, the law would also inevitably face legal liability issues
brought about by artificial intelligence. He put forward the possible cases of an
autonomous car being involved in an accident or when a smart contract incorrectly
records the details of a transaction. Third, the law must also come to grips with
emerging virtual and cryptocurrency technology, such as blockchain and Bitcoin.
These allowed the flow of money across jurisdictions without going through
financial institutions or government regulators. It was therefore timely for the CACJ
to look into new and potentially disruptive technology to help the ASEAN
Judiciaries to equip themselves to cope with the anticipated disruption.
10.19. The Chairperson summarised that the CACJ should consider these future new
technologies as they were going to be very challenging. He reminded the meeting
that Malaysia had earlier kindly agreed to lead the discussion on this, to study this
further and to make proposals for discussion at the next CACJ meeting.
11. SESSION 9 – ANY OTHER MATTERS
11.1. The Chairperson invited the Secretariat to present on the remaining items.
US INVITATION
Page 49 of 59
11.2. District Judge Christine Lee of Singapore (“CACJ Secretary”) referred the meeting
to the relevant letters relating to the US’ invitation to the Chief Justices at Tab 9 of
the meeting folders.
11.3. She shared that the first letter was the original Letter of Invitation dated 26 April
2017, proposing that the Chief Justices visit the US in October 2017. As the
proposed dates clashed with the Special CACJ Meeting in Manila, the Secretariat
counter-proposed for the visit to be held in May 2018 instead, as seen in the Hon.
Dato Seri Paduka Haji Kifrawi’s letter of 1 February 2018. However, in April 2018,
while trying to discuss and finalise the programme with the US, we realised that
the programme that the US had proposed did not meet the CACJ’s objectives for
the visit. As pointed out by the Hon. Sundaresh Menon in his letter of 18 April 2018,
the commitment of the Chief Justices or their replacement judges to take 1 week
from their schedule to go to the US was a huge commitment which required some
justification.
11.4. The CACJ Secretary reiterated the Hon. Sundaresh Menon’s suggestion for the
Council to decide on the key or minimum objectives that the US must comply with
in order for the Chief Justices to commit to the visit. She referred to the table which
had been prepared by the Secretariat to reflect the US’s objectives in their letter of
26 April 2017, the key objectives that the CACJ had indicated to the US in the 1
February 2018 letter and the key objectives that the Hon. Sundaresh Menon had
set out in his letter of 18 April 2018. The CACJ Secretary requested the Council’s
direction and guidance as to what the Council felt were the key or priority
objectives.
11.5. The Chairperson shared that he had sent the 18 April 2018 letter to the Council
members as it appeared that the US was pursuing the meeting with a different set
of objectives than the CACJ’s set of objectives. He shared that if the 10 Chief
Justices from ASEAN were to travel to the US, they needed to be very clear about
what they wanted to get out of it and to communicate these objectives to the US.
He suggested that the first key objective for the US visit would be for the CACJ to
Page 50 of 59
study their current developments on technology and future-ready Courts and how
they use technology for access to justice and to have cost-effective solutions for
justice. Second, for the CACJ to examine how and what opportunities there might
be for judicial training, Third, because there are some law schools that have a
focus on Asian studies and there are some faculty and students who may be very
interested in helping the CACJ in some of its ideas or proposals by providing
research or staff work, to identify those schools and explore whether the CACJ
wishes to tie up with them. He cited as an example, the East Asian Legal Studies
Department in Harvard University, which would be a good resource for the CACJ if
they are interested in doing a tie-up with the CACJ and are willing to have faculty
or students help the CACJ in some of its projects.
11.6. The Chairperson suggested that the Secretariat could inform the State Department
of the agreed objectives for their planning purposes and if these objectives cannot
be met, his personal view was that the Chief Justices need not take the trouble to
go to the US for the visit. He added that he was concerned as the main feature
proposed by the State Department was the visit to the Supreme Court. The
Chairperson felt that while the US Supreme Court is a wonderful Court, the ASEAN
Judiciaries would not learn much by visiting the US Supreme Court as the ASEAN
Judiciaries do not have much in common with it. The Chairperson added that the
proposed Working Group on External Relations could help to define the issues. In
the interim, the Secretariat needed the Council to agree on what the objectives of
the visit are and to then negotiate with the US State Department on coming up
with a programme that meets these objectives.
11.7. The Chairperson suggested for the three objectives of the visit to be: (1) Assist the
ASEAN Judiciaries to become future-ready Courts and explore the use of
technology for the effective and economical delivery of justice; (2) Connect with
institutions and Courts that might be agreeable to provide relevant judicial training
for ASEAN Judges; and (3) meeting institutions and Courts that may be interested
in exploring an exchange programme or tie-ups on specific projects or proposals.
Page 51 of 59
The words you are searching are inside this book. To get more targeted content, please make full-text search by clicking here.
รายงาน ALA และ CACJ 2019
Discover the best professional documents and content resources in AnyFlip Document Base.
Search
รายงาน ALA และ CACJ 2019
- 1 - 50
- 51 - 100
- 101 - 150
- 151 - 200
- 201 - 250
- 251 - 300
- 301 - 350
- 351 - 400
- 401 - 450
- 451 - 500
- 501 - 550
- 551 - 600
- 601 - 650
- 651 - 700
- 701 - 718
Pages: