รายงาน ALA และ CACJ 2019

(a) Additional material on:

(i) Special interests of particular ASEAN judiciaries; and

(ii) Other focus areas.

(b) Additional languages options (including the national language of each
ASEAN judiciary).

5.9 That a single donor or group of donors shall be found to fund the costs of
creating the AJP. To facilitate the search for donors, the ACJM appoints Singapore
as its agent to lead the search for possible donors and to report to the ACJM for a
decision.

5.10 That each member state shall be responsible for creating and updating its own
information on the AJP. If any funding is required for this, member states may seek
assistance on sourcing for potential sponsors from other member states.

5.115 The Member States agreed on that the Chief Justice of Singapore’s
deliberation to prepare a paperwill provide an update on sponsors for the
funding of AJP for at the next ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting.

6) PROMOTING JUDICIAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING BY
COLLABORATING TO DEVELOP IDEAS TO ENHANCE TRAINING
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE JUDGES AND JUDICIAL OFFICERS WITHIN
ASEAN – INDONESIA AND THE PHILIPPINES TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS
ISSUE.

INDONESIA’S DISCUSSION PAPER INTEGRATED TRAINING IN LEGAL
MATTERS

6.1 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Indonesia briefly mentioned that
Indonesia is tasked together with the Philippines for the judicial training. There
are two programmes which are, the long term programme and secondly, a
short term programme. Indonesia had circulated the Terms of Reference for the
18

programme. The Chief Justice also suggested that for the judicial training to run
smoothly, there must be one working group comprising all ASEAN Member
States, to work out the syllabus as well as persons to teach the core subjects
for the training for the programme. It is Indonesia’s hope that everyone here
would appoint their representatives for the training, who would then take the
lead of the working group. The other programme is the short term programme.
In this regard, Indonesia can offer immediate training some time in mid-
November 2014, for 3-4 days, in Jakarta. Each country is to provide two
representatives and all expenses would be borne by Indonesia except for flight
tickets.

6.2 The Hon Justice IGA Sumanatha delivered the presentation on the proposed
approach to legal training (as in Indonesia’s Discussion Paper). The intention
is to develop and deliver training intended for members of the ASEAN Judiciary
on topics relating to strategic matters relevant to the needs of AEC integration
via the following mechanisms:
i. Establish a Working Group which consists of representatives of the
ASEAN Judiciary nominated by each member country;
ii. This working group would serve for a fixed period of five years;
iii. The Working Group would be assisted by a secretariat which would in turn
be managed by the Reform Agency of the Supreme Court of Indonesia,
which would provide necessary processes;
iv. The Board of Committee would meet at least once a year to decide upon
an annual working plan of the integrated training forum through a
deliberation which covers :
a. Training design, including topics, approach and methodology
b. Identification of resource persons and teaching materials.
c. Other aspects that need to be determined.

v. Between meetings, the Board shall communicate by means of emails,
telephone conferencing/video conferencing as may be necessary.

vi. A small web page for placing information and progress related timetables,
dates, or events may be established by the secretariat for easy reference
19

for the members. Preferably this page should be hosted under the ASEAN
Judicial Portal or for the time being to
[email protected] .

6.3 In general training would be organised in the following manner :
i. A training programme would last for 3-4 days
ii. Training under this scheme would be conducted at least once a year, held
in Indonesia and Philippines on a rotational basis.
iii. Topics shall be focused into areas which are relevant to the interests of
the ASEAN Judiciaries under the AEC regime, such as legal aspects ,
dispute resolution, cross border contract and insolvencies, and other
topics to be determined by the Board of Working Group
iv. Detailed Topics for a particular training event, including subjects, resource
persons, shall be deliberated before the Board of Committe for the
Committee’s approval.
v. In principle, the working groups may nominate their members as resource
persons according to the expertise and proportionality of participation.

THE PHILIPPINES’ DISCUSSION PAPER

6.4 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines also presented her
paper based on collaboration and developing ideas with judges. The
Philippines advised that they have a training academy created by a special
statute of Congress, and it has been in existence for 18 years. The Chief
Justice mentioned some of the programmes handled by the Academy including
among others, the European Commission of Intellectual Property Rights
Programme on Intellectual Property in 2004; a programme on the Wildlife
Enforcement Network Support by the Government of Japan and the World
Bank. Another training programme was in cooperation with the Asia Regional

20

Trafficking in Persons Project by the Australian Government Aid Programme
and Cardno. There was also the Second Asian Judges Symposium.

6.5 The Philippines made recommendations, firstly, to harness the existing facilities
such as the Philippines Judicial Academy to promote inter-ASEAN judicial
education and training. Secondly, to look into the judicial issues.

DISCUSSION

BRUNEI:

6.6 The Chief Justice of Brunei stated that it would be grateful if the Chief Justice of
Indonesia could invite Brunei for the coming training.

SINGAPORE:

6.7 The Chief Justice of Singapore expressed his appreciation on both countries’
joint proposed papers. The Chief Justice made some specific points, firstly the
great advantage of the physical training facilities proposed and provided by
Indonesia and the Philippines. Singapore stated that all Member States should
be grateful to have access to such facilities. Singapore would definitely send
two judges. The Chief Justice also suggested that there should be a working
group that can work through the details and the thrust of research. The working
group should be allowed to study the subject and adopt or endorse proposals.

6.8 In developing the curriculum, the Chief Justice opined that there should be
cross- border commercial issues, and that should be the guiding light to be
given to the working group. For instance, with respect to cross-border contracts
which are investment issues, there should be the subject guidelines for the
working group. The Chief Justice also liked the idea that the training must be
substantial, and that these training programmes should be sustained and
sustainable over a 3-4 day period so that the judges can mingle and exchange
ideas throughout the programme. The training should bring value and the areas
covered should be covered in depth. The Chief Justice also suggested that the

21

working group should study funding options. The Chief Justice was of the view
that the best training is training done by judges and the working group could
work out its budget.

MALAYSIA:

6.9 The Chief Justice of Malaysia sought endorsement on the views and proposals
put forward by the Chief Justice of Singapore.

INDONESIA:

6.10 The Chief Justice of Indonesia reiterated the programme to be conducted in
Indonesia; the training is specifically on environment. The Chief Justice also
agreed with the response of the Chief Justice of Singapore and stated that
would be a basis to follow and requested that Member States assign their
members for the working group.

MALAYSIA:

6.11 The Chief Justice of Malaysia asked whether this would be a joint
chairmanship.

PHILIPPINES:

6.12 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines said it would be
known as a joint partnership.

MALAYSIA:

6.13 The Chief Justice of Malaysia reiterated that each Member State would send its
representatives. Committees would be set up. Funding and topics would be
determined by the working committee.

VIETNAM:

22

6.14 The Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam thanked the Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Philippines and the Chief Justice of Indonesia
and wanted confirmation regarding the training by mid-Nov 2014 in Indonesia.
Vietnam is concerned about human resources as well. The Chief Justice
advised of another initiative in Vietnam where judicial and legal training are
given attention too. Currently in Vietnam, they have programmes with Japan
and Australia in terms of judicial training as well as cooperation programmes
with Cambodia and Laos. The Chief Justice also informed the Meeting that they
have a department responsible for judicial education and that there should be a
cooperation mechanism among judicial departments of the Supreme Courts so
that there can be comparative material on related issues.

7) DECISION

7.1 The Chairman brought to the attention of the Member States the decision to
establish a Working Group.

7.2 The Chief Justice of Indonesia suggested that each Member State should
assign their representatives for the Working Group.

7.3 The Chairman agreed to remind Member States to appoint representatives
from each Member State.

7.4 The Chairman echoed the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines that the training programme would be on a joint partnership basis
between Indonesia and the Philippines.

8) MALAYSIA’S WORKING PAPER ON HARNESSING JUDICIAL
CO-OPERATION IN ASEAN BY COLLABORATING AND
SHARING BEST PRACTICES IN FACILITATING THE SERVICE
OF CIVIL PROCESSES WITHIN ASEAN TO PROMOTE

23

ECONOMIC GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ASEAN
REGION.

MALAYSIA:

8.1 The Right Hon. Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Zulkefli bin Ahmad Makinudin, Chief Judge of
Malaya made the presentation. The Chief Judge of Malaya advised that
Malaysia had received assistance and response from all ASEAN Member
States and the Malaysian Bar except Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam and Laos
in preparing the report. Malaysia indicated that references were made to other
jurisdictions including the European Union (EU), Australia and New Zealand as
well as the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in framing the report.

8.2 The Chief Judge of Malaya highlighted that there are variations in methods of
service amongst Member States. However there are some similarities in the
methods used in Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei Darussalam.

8.3 The Chief Judge of Malaya said that in order to achieve judicial cooperation in
ASEAN and sharing best practices in facilitating the service of civil processes
within ASEAN, there is a need to come out with a common and standard mode
of service. Therefore, it is proposed that the ASEAN Member States agree on
applying a standard and formatted mechanism of service of civil processes
within Member States. It was also proposed that ASEAN Member States adopt
the EU or the Hague Convention 1965 model with modifications in relation to
common standards of service.

8.4 The Malaysian Judiciary recommends that a treaty be signed by all ASEAN
Member States. The Chief Judge of Malaya proposed that the focus will be on
4 main aspects:

i)To do away with the requirement of leave of court. Leave of court should not
be necessary in order to serve documents overseas. As long as there is a
cause of action, service may be effected overseas. This is to speed up the
process of effecting service;

24

ii) To establish local Transmission and Receiving Agencies in every ASEAN
Member State. The government of each ASEAN Member State may set
up 2 bodies that may act as the Transmitting Agency and the Receiving
Agency respectively, or one body may carry out both functions.

iii) The documents required to effect service. However Malaysia is not
suggesting that there should be standardised legal documents for service
of civil process among ASEAN Member States. This is because each
Member State has a standard mode of commencement in its own
jurisdiction. Malaysia suggests the introduction of a standard mechanism
in terms of language and forms for service; and

iv) The recognition by all ASEAN Member States of substituted service and
the procedures required for its implementation.

The Chief Judge of Malaya then opened the floor for further discussion with the hope
that all Member States would come to a consensus, namely to have a common
method and mechanism of service in order to promote economic growth and
development within the ASEAN region.

DISCUSSION

SINGAPORE:

8.5 The Chief Justice of Singapore suggested that the Hague Convention which is
a ‘ready-made’ treaty as themay be a faster way to make theachieve a common
framework successful. The Chief Justice was of the viewsuggested that the text
can of the Hague Convention could be adopted and confined solely to ASEAN
Member States. The Chief Justice requested that the Chairman suggested that
the issue be postponed to the next meeting for discussion, as it entaileds
preparatory work, to put this paper up for further consideration at the next
meeting so that during which time Member States can consult their respective
Governments on their preference as to whether to signbetween the Hague
Convention a treaty or an ASEAN-specific custom made treaty. The Chief

25

Justice suggested that all Member States to revert back to the Chief Judge of
Malaya.

MALAYSIA:

8.6 The Chief Justice of Malaysia expressed concern that if Member States
became a signatory to the Hague Convention, other jurisdictions to the
Convention will also be affected.

SINGAPORE:

8.7 The Chief Justice of Singapore responded that the treaty will be a multilateral
treaty amongst ASEAN Member States only.

MALAYSIA:

8.8 The Chief Justice of Malaysia agreed to the suggestion put forward by the Chief
Justice of Singapore.

VIETNAM:

8.9 The Chief Justice of Vietnam agreed that it is very important for Member States
to comply as it unifies the service of civil process. However, with respect to
signing a treaty, he was of the view that more time was needed to study the
proposal paper, because the internal laws of the State would have to be
studied.

8.10 The Chief Justice also stated that in Vietnam, the law on the signing of treaties

was introduced in 2005. However many departments would be involved in

signing an international treaty, for instance the Ministry of Justice. The

Supreme Court can make a suggestion, but at the end of the day, it would be

the President who decided. He advised that Vietnam is a signatory to the

Hague Convention and Vietnam is ready to be a member to the proposed

service convention. The Chief Justices must make careful consideration as

proposed by the Chief Justice Singapore as to whether to sign a treaty or come

up with an alternative solution.

26

MALAYSIA:

8.11 The Chief Justice of Malaysia stated that Malaysia and Singapore have entered
some reciprocal agreements on certain matters. The Chief Justice proposed
that Member States could develop the matter further and enlarge the concept
on the same basis.

PHILIPPINES:

8.12 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Philippines stated that they have to
wait for the Philippines Government to decide. The agreement is at the
ministerial level. The Supreme Court has to discuss the issue with the Minister
of Foreign Affairs. It must get a two-third endorsement in order that an
agreement to sign a treaty is achieved.

MALAYSIA:

8.13 The Chief Justice of Malaysia suggested that a working group be established
comprising representatives from Member States and to be chaired by the Chief
Judge of Malaya.

SINGAPORE:

8.14 The Chief Justice of Singapore suggested that the Chief Judge of Malaya’s
working group work on questionsprepare a questionaire for Member States to
provide their inputs give feedback and to come back to the working group. In
Singapore, the judiciary is empowered to make rules on to deal with how
foreign civil processes may be validly served within their jurisdiction, and this
could provide an alternative solution to the issuecertain matters. However, not
all jurisdictions empowered their judiciary to enact such rules dealing with
service. The questions should reflect as toseek inputs as to whether
jurisdictions had the power to enact rules on service of process; if they did not
and whether this required would be within the ambit ofa treatyies, namely

27

whether the Member State is was a signatoryparty to the ‘Service Convention’
and if not whether Member States are were willing to consult their respective
Executives on becoming a signatory.

MALAYSIA:

8.15 The Chief Justice of Malaysia sought an endorsement on what had been
discussed and to return to the subject at the next ASEAN Chief Justices’
Meeting. On the next two tasks given to Malaysia, the use of court technology
and case management, the Chairman stated that Malaysia would provide the
papers at the next ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting.

9) DECISION

9.1 Each Member State voiced their concerns on the signing of the Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in
Civil or Commercial Matters 1965 or on a multilateral treaty confined to ASEAN
Member States.

9.2 Some Member States suggested the need to consult their respective
Governments and the feedback would be deliberated at the next ASEAN Chief
Justices’ Meeting.

9.3 The Chairman directed that the Working Group be chaired by the Chief Judge
of Malaya and that each Member State must appoint a representative for this
Working Group.

9.4 The Chief Justice of Singapore suggested that the Working Group chaired by
the Chief Judge of Malaya work on the specific questions for each Member
State to consult their Governments and revert back to the Chief Judge of
Malaya’s Working Group before the next ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting.

9.5 The specific questions posed are:

28

(i) On the judiciary’s powers - whether the judiciary has the power to make
rules with regards to this matter;

(ii) To advise whether Member States are already a signatory to the Hague
Convention of the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents
in Civil or Commercial Matters 1965; and

(iii) If not, wWhether Member States are willing to consult their respective
Executives in relation to this matteron possible accession.

9.6 The Chairman sought endorsement on what had been discussed and stated
that the matter would be discussed further at the next ASEAN Chief Justices’
Meeting.

10) OTHER ISSUES:

SINGAPORE:

10.1 The Chief Justice of Singapore informed the Meeting about, and encouraged
the attendance of judges at, the forum organised by the Judicial Interest Group
of the ICCA (International Council for the Commercial Arbitration) on Arbitration
in Hong Kong on 12-13 May 2015. The Chief Justice alluded that the ASEAN
Chief Justices’ Meeting hadthis forum has arrived at a number of specific
milestones for tothat day. The Chief Justice thenand suggested to that it would
be opportune for the Chairman inform to update the ALA Governing Council
Meeting of these milestones progress of the ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting
today. The Chief Justice also suggested that the China-ASEAN Chief Justices’
Statement in Nanning be signed.

PHILIPPINES:

10.2 The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Philippines then asked (in reference
to the suggestion to inform update the ALA Governing Council Meeting of the
outcomes of the ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting), about the relationship
between the judicial cooperation meeting (China-ASEAN Justice Forum) in
Nanning and today’s ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting.
29

MALAYSIA:

10.3 The Chief Justice of Malaysia in reply said that he is not sure and does not
know who is in the committee.

BRUNEI:

10.4 The Chief Justice of Brunei suggested that there is a need for consolidation
between the Judicial Cooperation Group in ALA and the ASEAN Chief Justices’
Meeting. The Chief Justice further said that in the past, ALA was talking about
an ASEAN legal system and the legal side was also discussing the same
matter. Why are there two bodies undertaking the same matter?

SINGAPORE:

10.5 The Chief Justice of Singapore mentioned that there is an the ALA Judicial
Cooperation Committee and that cancould be dispensed with as it would be
more appropriate for all issues relating toall the ASEAN judicial cooperation on
the judiciary shouldto be discussed and decided upon at the ASEAN Chief
Justices’ Forumin this forum. The Chief Justice also viewed the current
arrangement as being preferable as all Chief Justices were able to meet prior to
the ALA, and thereafter got to meet first and advise the ALA members as to the
outcome of the Chief Justices’ Meeting. That would be better as the This would
be preferable as the Chief Justices should would then be able to drive the
agenda first, rather than the other way round.

VIETNAM:

10.6 The Chief Justice of Vietnam stated that there are many issues arising from
Member States regarding mutual legal assistance and sought clarification as to
whether Member States have a Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement or not.

MALAYSIA:

30

10.7 The Chief Justice of Malaysia directed the Meeting to be strict in its adherence
to the existing agenda which should be focussed on business and economics,
which is safe ground, rather than on other sensitive areas. However the
Chairman advised that Malaysia does have a Mutual Legal Assistance
arrangement with other Member States but that is a matter of policy to be
decided by the Executive.

10.8 The Chairman reported that on the next two tasks given to Malaysia that is, the
use of court technology and case management techniques, Malaysia would
provide papers at the next ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting.

11) CONCLUSION
11.1 The Chairman thanked all the eight (8) Chief Justices who had taken the

trouble to be in Malaysia and stated that he valued all the support and hard
work of the Chief Justices and their working members to make this ASEAN
Chief Justices’ Meeting a success.
11.2 The 3rd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting will be held in Boracay, Philippines, at
the Shangri-La Hotel, on 1 - 3 March 2015.
11.3 The 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting was adjourned at 6.25 pm.

31

PREPARED BY:
Rapporteur Committee, Malaysia
For the 2nd ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting on 19 September 2014
Research Unit
Office of the Chief Justice of Malaysia
Istana Kehakiman, Putrajaya
Malaysia.

32





















































Common Baseline Content for all ASEAN Judiciaries to be Contained on the AJP

1. Information about the judicial system (ie constitution, jurisdiction, court structure etc);

2. Information about the head of the Judiciary and the most senior members of the apex court
(eg deputies, or top 5, based on the judiciaries’ preference);

3. Information about the legal system;

4. Information about the sources of laws, court procedures and court processes, with links to
official versions of the country’s legislation and case authorities or key authorities, all of
which are to have authorised English translations;

5. Information about the legal profession;

6. Information on other bodies dealing with trade and commerce and exercising regulatory or
administrative supervision; and

7. Section of hyperlinks to and email addresses of relevant organs of state, legal professional
bodies, directory of law firms, etc.

CACJ Representatives for the Working Group on ASEAN Judiciaries Portal

S/N Country Name Organisation

1. Brunei Dk Hjh Norismayanti Binti Pg Hj Supreme Court of Brunei
2. Cambodia Ismail Darussalam
3. Indonesia Justice Khiev Sokha Supreme Court of the Kingdom of
Cambodia
4. Justice Faisal A. Taqwa Supreme Court of the Republic of
Indonesia / Office of the Chief
5. Justice DY Witanto Justice
Supreme Court of the Republic of
6. Lao PDR Mr Aria Suyudi Indonesia / Judicial Reform Team
7. Office
8. Malaysia Justice Phomsouvanh Philachanh Supreme Court of the Republic of
9. Myanmar Indonesia / Judicial Reform Team
10. Philippines Mr Khee Simeuang Office
11. The People’s Supreme Court of the
12. Singapore Judge Edwin Paramjothy a/l Lao PDR
13. Thailand Michael The People’s Supreme Court of the
14. Mr Zaw Min Aung Lao PDR
15. Vietnam Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court
16. Justice Angelene Mary W.
Quimpo-Sale Supreme Court of the Union of
Ms Ma. Ruby D. Castillo Myanmar
Justice Lee Seiu Kin Court of Appeals of the Philippines
Judge Sathien Rungthongkhamkul
Supreme Court of the Philippines
Mr Rapi Rikulsurakan Supreme Court of Singapore
Office of the President of the
Mrs Bui Thi Nhan Supreme Court of Thailand
Mr Nguyen Tien Hiep Office of the President of the
Supreme Court of Thailand
Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam
Supreme People’s Court of Vietnam

ASEAN JUDICIARIES PORTAL
CONTENTS TEMPLATE1

1. HOME

This is the landing page for your country. Please include a short introduction on your country’s
judiciary and legal system.

2. JUDICIARY
i. Overview of [fill in country name]’s Judiciary

You may wish to include a brief overview of your country’s Judiciary here.

ii. History
You may wish to include a short write-up on the history of your country’s Judiciary here.

iii. Description of the [fill in country name] Courts

1 Please note that this is a general template based on Singapore’s pages. Please feel free to amend according
to your country’s requirements.

1

You may wish to have a sub-menu item for each Court in your country and set out the history,
structure and location etc. of each Court as well as links to the Courts’ websites.

3. LEGAL SYSTEM
i. Introduction

You may wish to include sub-menu items on the following:
(a) a brief overview of the legal system in your country ;
(b) the various organs of state or departments such as the Attorney-General’s Chambers and

Ministry of Law;
(c) the administrative and regulatory bodies; and
(d) other relevant institutions (e.g. law society).

ii. [fill in country name] Laws
(1) Overview

You may wish to have sub-menu items on the following:
(a) sources of laws in your country;
(b) court procedure and court processes; and
(c) links to relevant websites (e.g. website with legislation database)

(2) Key Legislation
2

You may wish to have sub-menu items for each relevant statute (e.g. Companies Act) and a short
description of each statute.

(3) International law in [fill in country’s name]
- International treaties that Singapore is party to

You may wish to include sub-menu items on the following:
(a) international treaties that your country is party to; and
(b) your country’s approach to international law.

iii. Doing business in [fill in country name]
You may include any content which are relevant to doing business in your country (e.g. information
on the different types of corporate structures available and how to set up a business in your
country).

iv. Dispute resolution processes
(1) Types of dispute resolution
3

You may wish to include sub-menu items for the different types of dispute resolution available in
your country (e.g. litigation and arbitration) and give a short description of each type of dispute
resolution.

(2) Specialised tribunals
You may wish to have sub-menu items on each of the specialised tribunals in your country (e.g.
employment tribunal and intellectual property office).

4. RESOURCES
You may wish to include sub-menu items on the following:
(a) directory of public notaries
(b) directory of mediators/arbitrators
(c) media releases/speeches
(d) publications; and
(e) upcoming events

4

Annex G1 – Page Visits to the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal Per Month
from July 2018 to September 2019

Annex G2 – Top 10 Countries that have visited the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal
from July 2018 to September 2019

The list of countries under
“Others” include:
• Brunei
• Japan
• Hong Kong
• China

Annex H – Sample Screenshots of the Training Marketplace (Public)
Extracted from the Testing Environment

(1) Main Page

(2) Course Details Page