---

Applicant’s Attorney Abraham Amos was delivered the petition points at judicial review session on UU Advokat, which held on Monday (20/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie 

 

 

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) was again held a judicial review session on Act No. 18 Year 2003 of Advocates (Undang-Undang Advokat –UU Advokat) with agenda petition revision, on Monday afternoon (20/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Representing other Applicant, Abraham Amos said that the revision made on the principal reasons of petition. According to him, the main problem related to non-compliance actions towards the MK verdicts.

“The reasons which at issue are we directly to the core issue that actually related to non-compliance actions towards the MK verdicts, that is the explanation. Then, some of the Supreme Court (Mahkamah Agung –MA) decree that issued had ignored the order from Constitutional Court,” explained Abraham in front of judge panel led by Constitutional Judge Suhartoyo.

Moreover, Abraham said the Applicant felt detrimental because there was an interpretation from related parties towards the previous MK verdict. The Applicant was also clarifying the discrimination suffered by them. According to the Applicant, head of the High Court (Pengadilan Tinggi) should conduct advocates oath regardless of their organizations, in accordance with the order contained in the MK verdict.

“We clarify the discrimination occurred, in accordance with the MK order that the authority of Head of the High Court (Kepala Pengadilan Tinggi –KPT) shall conduct advocates oath regardless of their organization. We clarify on it,” said Abraham.

Clarifying the constitutional loss, one of the Applicant Johni Bakar said that the main problem was on limitation of the court proceedings which suffered by advocates from the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (Kongres Advokat Indonesia –KAI)

“The problem is actually laid on limitation of our rights to do court proceedings. So, our colleagues and we understand that problem. It is not a matter on how the act saying, related on the provision of single forum which we understand from Verdict No. 101 is indeed stated the KAI and the Association of Indonesian Advocates (Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia –Peradi) are de facto. This means that Act Number 18 Year 2003 of Advocates doesn’t have a single forum as stipulated from the Act a quo,” said Johni.

Moreover, the Applicant said that they already revised the petition petitum (subject matter). The Applicant requested to the judge panel to declare Article 4 (1) and Article 4 (3) Act a quo on phrase ‘at the High Court’ (‘di pengadilan tinggi’) and ‘by the High Court registrar concerned’ (‘oleh panitera pengadilan tinggi yang bersangkutan’) contrary to the 1945 Constitution (Undang-Undang Dasar 1945 –UUD 1945) and had no legal binding.

After validating the evidence, Constitutional Judge Suhartoyo delivered that the judge panel had understand the problem mentioned in the petition. “Panel had understood the intention from Applicant who represented his colleagues that unacceptable at the court proceedings due to unable to show jurat of affidavit (berita sumpah) from the High Court,” said Suhartoyo. Moreover, Suhartoyo said to the Applicant that the petition would be forwarded to the Judge’s Constultative Meeting (Rapat Permusyawaratan Hakim –RPH)

As known, Constitutional Judge Suhartoyo at previous session once said that there were solutions concerned on oath matter based on the MK verdict. “On the previous verdict (mentioned that) this problem should be resolved by both organizations, and if stuck then it could be forwarded or taken alternative (solution) to General Court, did the KAI had taken the resolution through general court?” asked Suhartoyo. (Triya IR/Prasetyo Adi N.)  

---