A witness from the Related Party (PERADI) Achiel Suyanto gave his testimony in the session for the review of Act on Advocates (Act 18 of 2003), Tuesday (5/4) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.
Jakarta, MKOnline - The review of Act on Advocates (Act 18 of 2003) had entered its fifth session scheduled to hear information from witnesses of Related Party. Acting as the Related Party in this case was several advocate organization; Indonesian Advocate Union (PERADI) and Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI). The session held on Tuesday (5/4) was chaired by Constitutional Justice Achmad Sodiki.
In cases number 66-71-79/PUU-VIII/2010, the Board of Justices had heard 10 witnesses. Seven of them were from Peradi and the rest were from KAI. While in this opportunity, PERADI presented Achiel Suyanto, Tazman Gultom, Thomas Edison Tampubolon, Fauzie Yusuf Hasibuan, Lintong Oloan Siahaan, M. Lutfie Hakim and Tamsil Syoekur as their witnesses and KAI presented Musidah, Erwin and Tomi Sihotang.
In his testimony, Achiel told about the formation history of advocate professional organization. He said that there was often different views and opinion among advocates related to the establishment. However, those differences had been reaching a meeting point by an agreement between PERADI and KAI to form one advocate organization in last 2010. One of the agreed point was to accommodate equally between PERADI and KAI in the management of the new organization. The signing of the agreement was done on June 24, 2010 at the Supreme Court.
The testimony was also supported by Deputy Secretary General of Indonesian Advocates and Lawyers Union (HAPI) Tasman Gultom. According to him, until now HAPI still admitted PERADI as a sole advocate organization. He also said that throughout history there had been eight advocate organizations which gathered and stated PERADI as the sole organization.
Besides that, a witness from PERADI also said that so far their side had organized education and examination for advocates in well and professional way. “We have carried out the examination according to the regulation within the law,” said Thomas Edison. In fact, according to him, his side had also involved a third party with international reputation in conducting the examination. As the result, it was free from manipulative elements. “Zero KKN (Corruption, Collusion, Nepotism)” he confirmed.
The statement was agreed by Fauzie Yusuf Hasibuan. According to Hasibuan, so far PERADI had conducted Special Education for Advocate Profession (PKPA) in compliance to the Act on Advocates and Act on National Education System (Sisdiknas). “We have made harmonization,” he claimed. “In the future, advocate education will be integrated to law magister in several universities.”
Meanwhile, witnesses from KAI accused that the formulation of a sole advocate organization had caused their rights as advocates and civilians to be damaged. Because, according to them, they should have had the rights to practice in the court, but they could not because they were rejected by the court officials. The reason was that they did not have the PERADI card and had not been inaugurated by the court. “The rejection have breached my rights as well as my clients,” added Erwin.
Further, Vice President of KAI, Tomi Sihotang told that what should be questioned by a court whether an advocate could practice or not was not based on the fact that someone was a PERADI graduate or not. According to him, what matter most that the clarity in letter of attorney from the clients. So long as the power of attorney had been given in a correct way, then the person could represent or defend a client in a court. He also emphasized that in the agreement on June 24, 2010. KAI had never acknowledged PERADI as the sole organization (Dodi/mh/YDJ)
Tuesday, April 05, 2011 | 15:51 WIB 273