MK held preliminary hearing on Judicial Review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocate - Case No. 140/PUU-XII/2014 on Wednesday (13/1). Applicants, namely Maryanto, Abraham Amor, and Johni Bakar postulated that all material on articles and clauses under Law No. 18 of 2003 were considered having discriminative implication.

 “Law No. 18 of 2003 violates constitutional rights of all applicants and other advocates who were treated unfairly, especially regarding existential and character abuse and violates human rights which gave harm toward the status of applicants and advocates in general,” Abraham Amos said, one of the applicant, before the Court.

According to applicants, the process of making and discussion, and ratification of Law No. 18 of 2003 was conflicted with Article 5 (2) of 1945 Constitution, and also contradicted with provision of Article 1 (5) of Law No. 12 of 2011 on Law Making Regulation, therefore implementation of Advocate Law ratification a quo was deemed defect in entirety. 

Applicant postulated, disloyalty toward MK’s Decision No. 101/PUU-VII/2009, was a violation against law (abused of power) by related parties, therefore, it has to be seriously mended in order to find solution and a way out from impasse of interest of each advocate organization. For it to not inflicting potential of bigger constitutional rights loss toward applicants specifically and advocates in general which shelter under various organizations with all of legal consequences applied.

Beside, according to applicant, since the implementation of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocate, factually and actually did not create harmonious and conducive environment, but on the contrary has brought dissension and dispute between advocate which tent to disrupt Advocate Organization’s existence and trapped under tangled environment to exercise their duty as a noble professional (officium nobile) advocate.

In response to applicant postulate, Justice Anwar Usman said that Applicants have to give clear argumentation. “Article being postulated must have strong reason. That if the article was to be implemented would result in constitutional loss of the applicant,” Anwar said.

Anwar also highlighted applicants’ petitum. Anwar asked applicants’ to point out and refer to UU MK vigilantly. Moreover, Anwar also questioned judicial review requirement for the applicants.

Meanwhile, Justice Aswanto added Justice Anwar response regarding formal review requirement. “Later, please take a look at MK’s Decision No. 27/PUU-VI/2009. Under the decision, it has been affirmed that there is limit time for judicial review. While, Advocate Law has been passed since 2003, so it does not meet the requirement for judicial review.

 “Mk’s Decision No. 27 also underlined that to file a review on specific law, it has to be submitted between 45 days since its promulgation,” Aswanto asserted. (Nano Tresna Arfana/ky)