Sentra Advokasi Perempuan, Disabilitas, dan Anak (Sapda), in collaboration with PWYP Indonesia and supported by the European Union–Open Government Partnership, held a discussion titled “Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Facilities and Infrastructure of Inclusive Court Services for Persons with Disabilities” on 20 August 2026 in Lempuyangan, Yogyakarta. The discussion involved stakeholders including the Supreme Court, several legal aid organizations, and organizations of persons with disabilities.
The fundamental principle of equality before the law requires the state to ensure that all citizens-without exception-have safe, comfortable, and dignified access to judicial processes. For persons with disabilities, this guarantee is not merely the provision of physical facilities, but the fulfillment of human rights covering the right to justice, legal protection, and freedom from discrimination and stigma.
Miko, representing Sapda, opened the discussion by emphasizing the importance of a shared commitment to hear the judiciary’s achievements while also evaluating the real involvement of persons with disabilities on the ground. As a form of implementing the global commitment under the UNCRPD and the mandate of Law Number 8 of 2016 on Persons with Disabilities, the Supreme Court (MA), particularly the Directorate General of Religious Courts (Ditjen Badilag), together with the civil society coalition, continues to strengthen monitoring and evaluation (Monev) instruments to realize inclusive justice throughout Indonesia.
Policy Foundations and the Roadmap for Inclusive Justice
The policy map on rights and services for persons with disabilities in the judiciary has in fact been regulated in detail across various legal instruments. This begins with Law Number 19 of 2011 on the Ratification of the UNCRPD, Law Number 8 of 2016 on Persons with Disabilities, and Government Regulation (PP) Number 39 of 2020 on Reasonable Accommodation (AYL) for Persons with Disabilities in Judicial Processes.
Itjah Minantika (Head of the Governance Subdivision, Ditjen Badilag, Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia) explained that the Supreme Court has issued Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) Number 2 of 2025 on Guidelines for Adjudicating Cases of Persons with Disabilities in Contact with the Law in Court. This policy is reinforced by Decree of the Director General of Badilag Number 2078 of 2022 and Decree of Kabua Number 8 of 2026 to support the National Action Plan of Open Government Indonesia (RAN OGI) for 2026–2027.
Based on data from the past five years (2022–2026), there were 4,158 cases in the Religious Courts involving persons with disabilities, with divorce cases the most dominant. Ditjen Badilag itself has designated 146 pilot courts equipped with priority facilities such as guiding blocks, wheelchairs, ramps, accessible toilets, and information media in Braille and audio.
Co-Creation Framework and the Five Main Aspects of Monev Measurement
In the renewal of open government, the concept of co-creation or equal collaboration between government and civil society is the main key. Rama Agung from SAPDA explained that the Monev instrument under Commitment Number 4 of RAN OGI VIII was developed by mapping and adapting the provisions of the Minister of Administrative and Bureaucratic Reform Regulation of 2024, PERMA Number 2 of 2025, and technical standards for buildings.
The measurement of inclusive justice is comprehensively mapped into five main assessment aspects: (1) Policy and Leadership: measuring leadership commitment, budget allocation, SOPs for services and emergency evacuation, and oversight mechanisms. (2) Physical Accessibility: assessing the adequacy of guiding blocks, designated parking (distance ≤60 m), ramps (slope 1:20–1:12), accessible toilets (360° turning space), priority counters (desk height 70–105 cm), and mobility aids. (3) Information and Communication Accessibility: ensuring Braille catalogs, videos with sign language interpreters (JBI), websites meeting WCAG standards, social media accessible to screen readers, and multi-channel complaint channels. (4) Reasonable Accommodation (AYL): assessing service flexibility such as sign language interpreter support, teleconference hearings, outreach services, and priority queues based on the Washington Group Short Set (WGSS). (5) Human Resources: testing staff competence through disability sensitivity training and understanding of interaction ethics.
Critical Notes from Civil Society: Capturing User Experience and the Diversity of Disabilities
This monitoring process received various important inputs from the coalition of civil society organizations and organizations of persons with disabilities. Soleh from the Indonesian Association of Persons with Disabilities (PPDI) Yogyakarta stressed that the involvement of disability organizations is mandatory from the planning stage through to monitoring and evaluation. He also highlighted the importance of non-physical accessibility and the accessibility of main physical building elements such as doors and stairs between floors.
From the perspective of victim support, Rifka Annisa reminded participants that monitoring should not be trapped in administrative compliance alone. Assessment must be able to capture user experience—whether service users (especially women and children who are victims of violence) feel safe, free from stigma and revictimization, and understand all legal procedures.
Meanwhile, Nena of OHANA reminded participants that access should not overlook multiple disabilities (such as deafblindness) that require reasonable accommodation in the form of tactile communication. She also criticized the digital e-Court system, which remains difficult to access without assistance, and suggested that the capacity of law enforcement officials continue to be improved through the curriculum of the Training Center for Prospective Judges (CAKIM).
Closing the discussion, a representative of the Center for Improving Qualified Activities in Life of People with Disabilities (Ciqal) shared their experience of directly testing court facilities in the field. According to them, involving persons with disabilities as an independent assessment team (monitored by users) is crucial to ensure that facilities such as ramps and handrails are truly safe and can be used independently.
Through strengthened collaboration between the Supreme Court, ministries and agencies, and civil society, efforts to realize inclusive justice are expected not to stop at meeting standards and providing facilities. Further, the monitoring and evaluation process needs to ensure that users’ experiences and needs truly become part of decision-making, so that courts can become spaces of justice that are equal, dignified, and accessible to all.