Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study examines the effectiveness of Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 1 of 2016 on Court Mediation Procedures through the fluctuating mediation success rates across all case types at the Surabaya Religious Court from 2023 to 2025. It asks how mediation success fluctuated during this period and how the regulation’s effectiveness can be read through Lawrence M. Friedman’s legal system theory. This normative legal research employs statutory and conceptual approaches, treating the court’s annual activity reports as secondary legal materials analysed qualitatively and prescriptively. The findings show that the success rate moved from 45.10% (2023) to 93.16% (2024) before falling to 71.55% (2025), while mediation reached only 8.70–9.45% of the cases decided each year. In terms of legal substance, PERMA No. 1 of 2016 provides no standard operational definition or indicator of mediation success. In terms of legal structure, the court faces a shortage of judges, limited funding for external mediators, and inconsistent reporting. In terms of legal culture, an orientation toward numerical targets and performance awards risks displacing the meaning of substantive peace. The study recommends standardised success indicators that distinguish full settlement, partial agreement, and case withdrawal, so that mediation statistics can serve as a reliable measure of the regulation’s effectiveness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adhellia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: