Media Statement: 12th Council of ASEAN Chief Justices (CACJ) Meeting: ASEAN Chief Justices launch regional model framework for cross-border insolvency

12th COUNCIL OF ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES (CACJ) MEETING: ASEAN CHIEF JUSTICES LAUNCH REGIONAL MODEL FRAMEWORK FOR CROSS-BORDER INSOLVENCY

Singapore and Philippines judiciaries sign Memorandum of Understanding on bilateral cooperation in cross-border insolvency proceedings at sideline events of CACJ Meeting 

       The Supreme Court of Singapore hosted the 12th Council of ASEAN Chief Justices (CACJ) Meeting on 15 November 2025. This regular forum enables the Chief Justices to discuss shared challenges, strengthen judicial partnerships and advance judicial cooperation to support regional economic stability and growth and the rule of law across ASEAN. The 12th CACJ Meeting capped a series of events on 13 and 14 November 2025 jointly organised by the CACJ and the ASEAN Law Association, which held its 46th Governing Council Meeting on 14 November 2025.

Key Highlights of 12th CACJ Meeting and Sideline Events

2      The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon was elected to be the Chair of the CACJ at the 12th CACJ Meeting on 15 November 2025. This marks his third tenure as Chair since regular meetings of ASEAN Chief Justices were formalised in 2013.

3        The 12th CACJ Meeting welcomed a delegation from Timor-Leste as observers, following the country's accession as ASEAN's 11th member in October 2025.

        a.  Inaugural Meetings of ASEAN Insolvency and Intellectual Property Judges and Practitioners

4       On 14 November 2025, ASEAN insolvency judges and ASEAN intellectual property (IP) judges held two separate meetings and panel discussions with practitioners in their respective fields. The session on insolvency explored the current landscape of insolvency laws across ASEAN, examining how economic trends and geopolitical developments influenced stakeholder decision-making in restructuring and insolvency matters. Practical issues, such as challenges in recognising and enforcing insolvency judgments, and the legal treatment of rescue financing, were also discussed. The panel also highlighted successful strategies and the benefits of communication channels between specialist insolvency judges in the region.

5       The session on IP discussed the substantive and procedural challenges generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) poses to IP law, including patent and copyright issues, as well as evidentiary and jurisdictional complexities. It examined legal developments in GenAI governance across ASEAN and explored global trends relevant to the region. Potential issues arising from GenAI’s advancement and how alternative dispute resolution could address cross-border IP disputes were also considered by the panel.

        b.  Launch of Model Framework for Court Communication in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings among ASEAN Courts

6        The Model Framework for Communication and Cooperation Between ASEAN Courts in Cross-border Insolvency Proceedings (Model Framework) was launched at the CACJ meeting on 15 November with the aim of promoting cross-court communication in cross-border insolvency proceedings by encouraging each ASEAN court to voluntarily adopt the Model Framework and designate a point of liaison to facilitate court-to-court communication. The Model Framework is an essential first step toward establishing a structure for cross-court communication to facilitate cooperation and coordination in insolvency cases across the region. It signals to the ASEAN business community that judiciaries recognise the necessity of communication and cooperation in an environment marked by substantial cross-border commerce and diverse legal traditions. Importantly, under the framework, each court maintains independence over its modalities of engaging with other ASEAN courts.

        c.  Memorandum of Understanding to Facilitate Cross-Border Communications in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings

7        The Supreme Court of Singapore and the Supreme Court of the Philippines signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to Enhance Cross-Border Communications in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings on 14 November 2025.

8        This landmark MOU formalises the agreement between the two judiciaries to communicate and coordinate with each other to manage insolvency and restructuring proceedings across both jurisdictions more efficiently and promptly.  The goal is to improve the ease and effectiveness of transnational insolvency proceedings.

9        This MOU is Singapore’s second such instrument signed with an ASEAN jurisdiction, following the Singapore-Malaysia cross-border insolvency protocol established in July 2021. Given the significant bilateral trade volume – Singapore was the Philippines’ eighth largest trading partner in 2024 with US$8.73 billion in trade¹ – this agreement provides a crucial, common framework for courts, practitioners and all relevant stakeholders in both countries handling cross-border insolvency matters.

        d.  Memorandum of Guidance on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments

10        An agreement was reached to publish an ASEAN Memorandum of Guidance on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Money Judgments (ASEAN MOG) at the CACJ meeting. A compendium and reference tool for courts and legal practitioners, the ASEAN MOG aims to clarify procedures and legal frameworks governing the recognition and enforcement of foreign money judgments within each ASEAN member state. The ASEAN MOG aligns with the objectives of the Multilateral Memorandum on Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Judgments developed under the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts (SIFoCC) to encourage a more predictable environment for cross-border commercial enforcement.

11        More background information on CACJ can be found in Annex A.

¹ Source: The Philippines Embassy, Overview of Philippines-Singapore Relations - Embassy of the Philippines in Singapore

ANNEX A

1.  The CACJ traces its origins to a meeting of the ASEAN Chief Justices in Singapore on 23 August 2013, on the sidelines of the ASEAN Law Association General Council Meeting hosted by Singapore. It was then known as the ASEAN Chief Justices’ Meeting (“ACJM”). There, the ASEAN Chief Justices resolved to:

 (i)               promote close relations and mutual understanding amongst the ASEAN judiciaries;

(ii)              provide a regular forum for the ASEAN Chief Justices to discuss and exchange views on common issues facing the ASEAN judiciaries; and

(iii)            facilitate judicial cooperation and collaboration among ASEAN judiciaries with a view to accelerating the economic growth and development of the ASEAN region.

2.  Following the success of the first ACJM, the ASEAN Chief Justices met annually and established working groups to tackle issues of common interest and concern and to develop proposals for discussion at successive ACJMs. In April 2016, in light of its growing work scope, the ASEAN Chief Justices institutionalised the ACJM and renamed it to the CACJ. The term “Council” was proposed to emphasise the leadership, importance and authority of the ASEAN Chief Justices.

3.  Information, background, and announcements on the CACJ are publicly available on the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal. The ASEAN Judiciaries Portal aims to bring the ASEAN legal jurisdictions to the world by providing a portal through which the world can learn or know more about the judiciaries and legal environments of ASEAN Member States. It showcases the laws of the ASEAN Member States, fosters judicial cooperation and encourages the development of trade and investment for the ASEAN region.

4.  The CACJ meets on an annual basis and was accredited as an entity associated with ASEAN (under Category 1 in Annex 2 of the ASEAN Charter) in January 2017. Consistent with the resolutions made at the first ACJM, the mission of the CACJ is to strengthen partnerships amongst the ASEAN judiciaries and uphold the rule of law within and across ASEAN in the spirit of institutional independence and principled partnerships. In 2018, the CACJ adopted a Charter and Rules which formally established a legal and institutional framework for the CACJ. In 2022, the CACJ achieved another milestone when it organised the inaugural ASEAN+3 Meeting. Hosted by Malaysia, the CACJ extended invitations to external dialogue partners for the first time, and this led to the participation of the Chief Justices of the People’s Republic of China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea.

5.  Since 2015, CACJ decisions at the ordinary meetings have been recorded by way of publicly available Declarations.

6.  The CACJ is currently chaired by the Honourable the Chief Justice of Singapore Sundaresh Menon. The CACJ Chair is elected at the commencement of the Ordinary Meeting of the CACJ by acclamation, whose term shall last from the date of such election until another Chief Justice is elected at the next Ordinary Meeting. The CACJ also has a Standing Secretariat to provide administrative support to the CACJ and the CACJ Chair in the conduct of the affairs of the CACJ. It was agreed at the 5^th CACJ meeting in March 2017 that Singapore would host the Standing CACJ Secretariat for an initial period of five years. This mandate was extended at the 9^th CACJ Meeting (2021) for a further five years until 2027.

7.  At present, the CACJ has (a) nine Working and Study Groups and (b) two standing meetings of insolvency and intellectual property judges that advance its mission. All ASEAN judiciaries are represented in each Group. The present Working and Study Groups and their respective Chairs are:

 (i)                  Working Group on the ASEAN Judiciaries Portal, chaired by Singapore;

(ii)                 Working Group on Civil Proceedings, chaired by Malaysia;

(iii)                Working Group on Case Management and Court Technology, chaired by Malaysia;

(iv)               Working Group on Judicial Education and Training, co-chaired by Indonesia and the Philippines;

(v)                 Working Group on Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children, co-chaired by the Philippines and Singapore;

(vi)               Study Group on the Future Work of the CACJ, chaired by Singapore;

(vii)              Working Group on ASEAN+ Meetings, chaired by Thailand;

(viii)            Working Group on the Conduct of Videoconferencing Hearings, chaired by the Philippines; and

(ix)               Working Group on Climate Justice, chaired by the Philippines.