Moh. Alim (as Panel Chairman) along with Achmad Sodiki and M. Akil Mochtar were examining judicial review of Act No. 18 /2003 about Advocate on Thursday (17/2/11).
Jakarta, MKOnline – Quarrels about the single organization of advocate ended up to the Constitutional Court (The Court). For times, Act No. 18/2003 about Advocate was filed to The Court. The Petitioners, through their lawyers claimed that their current petition would be different from the previous one. At least, according to the Petitioner on case No. 79/PUU-VIII/2010, there were several differences in the legal standing and touch stones, as stated by one of the lawyers Taufik Basari during petition improvement session on Thursday (17/2).
Taufik said, he had made some improvements according to Board of Justices’ suggestion in the previous hearing on Wednesday (29/12/2010). “We desribe the differences between our current petition and the previous one. We also insert some tables.” The additional items could be used by the Board of Justices as consideration also supporting reasons to continue and to review the petition, said Taufik.
He also added, the review could not be categorized as nebis in idem (reviewing case for the second time) since the Petitioners are advocate candidates but never inaugurated. And the object of the petition did not review the entire Article 28 paragraph (1) of Act on Advocate. “We are reviewing the phrase only”, said Taufik.
The phrase he mentione was the only phrase in the Article. Article 28 paragraph (1) said, “Advocate Organization is the only organization for Advocate that is free and independent which is formed according to this Act with aims and intentions to increase the quality of Advocates
“The touch stone has never been used to review Advocate’s Act and in the previous case the petitioners are the advocates not advocate candidates”, Taufik explained. At least, according to him, the phrase was against Article 27 paragraph (2); Article 28; Article 28C Paragraph (1) and (2); Article 28D paragraph (1) and (2); and Article 28 paragraph (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
Previously, the Court had decided on the judicial review of Advocate’s Act through case No. 14/PUU-IV/2006. Constitutional Court rejected the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety. “At that time the material was in the freedom to associate,” said Taufik.
The main reason of the judicial review, said Taufik, was the existence of the article had caused friction among advocates, especially the organization for advocate profession. Even worse, the chaotic situation has an implication to the fate and future uncertainty of the prospective advocates. “(it) gives negative impacts,” he said.
Besides that, He claimed the phrase had been violated the Petitioners constitutional rights. “Advocate Single Organization has not been agreed yet in Indonesia,” said Ronggur Hutagalung, one of the lawayers. (Dodi/mh/sylvie)
Thursday, February 17, 2011 | 17:22 WIB 348