Adnan Buyung Nasution became an expert in the continuation of the review of Act No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates (Act on Advocates), Wednesday (23/3) at the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.
Jakarta, MKOnline - Advocates was a profession that should not be given full authority because they complied to certain requirements to be considered as advocates. That was delivered by a Professor in State Administrative Law of the University of Indonesia, Yusril Ihza Mahendra in the session for the review of Act 18/2003 about Advocates (Act on Advocates), Wednesday (23/3) at the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court (The Court). Three cases were adjudicate at the same time, they were case number 66/PUU-VIII/2010, 71/PUU-VIII/2010, also 79/PUU-VIII/2010. As many as 22 citizens who were also advocates were listed as the petitioners for the three cases; among others, Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, H. F. Abraham Amos, S.F. marbun, and some others.
“In fact, not all law graduates automatically become advocates, until they undergo certain education, tests and through the process of trainings, internships and inauguration to be advocates. Further, in the new act, it is emphasized that advocates is a profession and a law enforcer similar to other law enforcers who are free and independent. Because of that, actually the duty of an advocate is to provide public services, then there should be a similar standard for evaluation, similar ethics, similar profession, and similar education so that they provide the best service for the people who need legal service,” explained Yusril who acted as an expert from Peradi (an advocate union), the Related Party in this case.
Because of that, continued Yusril, with advocates’ organization with a profession nature, of course the state has an authority to regulate all things related to an organization of profession and also in the limitation as arrange in the stipulation of Article 28J of the 1945 Constitution. “Therefore, actually the form of advocate organization if we understand literally in Article 28I of the 1945 Constitution cannot be said to be against the stipulation within the Constitution. Because the Government and the Parliament as authoritative institutions to make laws are allowed to make the limitation and the limitations do not violate the principles of absolute Human Rights,” he said.
Principally, explained Yusril, all depended on the practices to implement the act so that from the normative observation of the Act on Advocates, there were no contradictions with the norms within the 1945 Constitution. “In our opinion, there is no constitutional problem, judicial review problem, contradiction problem between the norms within the Act and the norms within the 1945 Constitution. But it is more to the understanding of the formulation of the act and in carrying out the law in practice,” he mentioned.
Meanwhile, another Expert from the Related Party, Phillipus M. Hadjon explained about the character of the Act on Advocates as law enforcers. Seen in the 1945 Constitution, continued Phillipus, advocates belonged to Article 24 paragraph (3), a state body or institution as the organizer of judicial power. “And here, we need fundamental requirements which are independency and freedom in judicial power. With such function, can advocates establish their own organizations based on Article 28E paragraph (3)? We should pay attention to the specialty of advocates as law enforcers because they are related to Article 24 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, according to me, an advocate organizations as a single organization is constitutional,” he pointed out.
Responding to the statements from these experts, Board of Justices asked a few questions, one of them was Constitutional Justice Harjono asking about an obligation for an advocate to join an organization. “In principle, advocate is individual in nature. Then is it a must for an advocate to be a member of an advocate organization apart from the fact that the organization is a single bar or multiple bars? He asked.
Adnan Buyung Nasution replied that it was indeed compulsory so an advocate to participate in an organization. “A professional responsibility and a responsibility to the people is needed. If there is an advocate who are not right in exercising the profession, where would people make complaints other than through the organization. But since a long time ago, advocates are individuals like doctors,” he answered.
In this fourth session scheduled for hearing information from Witnesses/Experts from the Petitioners and Related Party, the Related Party presented two experts and nine witnesses. While in the main substance of the petition, the Petitioner claimed that their constitutional rights were disturbed by the enactment of Article 28 paragraph (1), Article 30 paragraph (2) and Article 32 paragraph (3) and (4). The next session would be held on March 31, 2011. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh)
Wednesday, March 23, 2011 | 16:22 WIB 198