Employing both quantitative and qualitative methods, the analysis of each of the components is based upon in-depth research and methodological best practices. The report takes up the differences in roles of both ad hoc and career judges, illuminating the tensions and challenges that face each of them in the performance of their duties and the measures that have been, or need to be, taken to meet these challenges. The broad comparative basis of the report reveals the striking discrepancies in workload and resources between different provincial courts, as well as the differing difficulties that judges face in these different settings. Important issues such as management, training, selection, certification, competence, infrastructure, budget, and more, are all dealt with in considerable detail.
The result of this comprehensive analysis is a Report that does much to explain the public perception that the provincial courts are not living up to the standard previously set by the sole Jakarta Anti-Corruption Court before the expansion of the system. It demonstrates why the perceived failings of the system are not simply due to individuals but rather to the strains placed upon the institution as a whole after the requirement of a too-rapid expansion. Based upon the exposure of these systemic features, the Report is able to arrive at sound recommendations for reform and change that should guide the Supreme Court and policy makers in addressing the current shortcomings of anti-corruption adjudication in Indonesia.
