---

Expert presented by the PERADI as Related Parties Muhammad Arief Setiawan delivered his testimony at the judicial review session on Act of Advocates, on Wednesday (1/7) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

Act of Advocates has delegate advocates organization regulation through articles of association, including in matter of board and chairman election. Therefore, resolution on chairman election of the Indonesian Advocates Association (Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia –PERADI) had been regulated on PERADI’s articles of association, so it doesn’t need to be reviewed on the Constitutional Court. It was stated by Muhammad Arif Setiawan as Expert presented by the PERADI at judicial review session on Act Number 18 Year 2013 of Advocates (Undang-Undang Advokat –UU Advokat) which held by the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) on Wednesday (1/7) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. The Case Number 32/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by several advocates Ikhwan Fahrojih, et al. which felt violated by the enactment of Article 28 (1) and (2) Act of Advocates.

In his testimony, Arief said the articles reviewed by the Applicant didn’t hampered Applicant’s rights to be elected as chairman. The provision was indeed allowed Applicant’s rights.

“In Expert observation, the PERADI never hampers or prohibits the Applicant rights to elect and to be elected as PERADI Chairman along it consistent and not contrary to the provisions of Article 28 (1) and (2) Act of Advocates and PERADI’s articles of association. It is indeed Applicant’s rights would be fulfilled through the articles of association,” he explained in front of Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman.

He assessed Article 28 (1) Act of Advocates was no need to be reinterpreted because the part considered obscure in the article was actually only related to the meaning of advocates organization. In citation of several Constitutional Court Verdict, it was clear that the advocates organization referred was the PERADI. “Article 28 (1) Act of Advocates didn’t need to be related to board election procedures, because the norms referred were regulated and stipulated in Article 28 (2) Act of Advocates,” Arief who also a law lecturer of Universitas Islam Indonesia explained.

At the session, the PERADI also presented two witnesses; Shalih Mangara Sitompul and Thomas E. Tampubolon. Both of them were once attended National Congress of PERADI Chairman Election. Thomas as one of the witnesses revealed the matter questioned by the Applicant was not a matter that should be resolved by the Court. It was because the mechanism of ‘one man one vote’ wasn’t Constitutional Court authority.

“The review is not on norm constitutionality towards the 1945 Constitution. The matter of ‘one man one vote’ is clearly regulated in articles of associations, in this case PERADI’s articles of association. The matter of ‘one man one vote’ is entirely handed over to the organization; the PERADI,” explained him.

In the petition, the Applicant argued there were two advocates organizations recently that claimed as the only one advocates organization based on Act of Advocates; the PERADI and the Indonesian Advocates Congress (Kongres Advokat Indonesia –KAI). As known, the Act a quo only mandated the establishment of only one advocates organization in Indonesia. It was occurred because the dissatisfaction of several advocates towards PERADI Board Election process which carried out without an open and democratic process by giving equal vote to each advocates in voting PERADI Board.  

According to the Applicant, it was understandable if the board election process for first period (2005-2010) was conducted through appointment by eight prevailing advocates organizations; the Indonesian Advocates Union (Ikatan Advokat Indonesia –IKADIN), the Indonesian Bar Association (Asosiasi Advokat Indonesia –AAI), the Indonesian Lawyers Association (Ikatan Penasihat Hukum Indonesia –IPHI), the Indonesian Advocates and Lawyers Association (Himpunan Advokat dan Pengacara Indonesia –HAPI), the Indonesian Lawyers Alliance (Serikat Pengacara Indonesia –SPI), the Association of Indonesian Legal Consultants (Asosiasi Konsultan Hukum Indonesia –AKHI), the Capital Market Lawyer Association (Himpunan Konsultan Hukum Pasar Modal –HKHPM). It was because the time-limit provided is very short; two years after the Act a quo enacted. However, the appointment shouldn’t be conducted for the next PERADI Board Election process, in which PERADI had a lot of time to prepare the election through ‘one man one vote’ mechanism. The next session was scheduled on hearing Applicant’s Expert and Applicant’s Witness testimony which will be held on July 1. (Lulu Anjarsari/Prasetyo Adi N)

---