---

President of the Indonesian Advocate Congress Indra Sahnun Lubis delivered testimony as Related Parties at judicial review session on Act of Advocates, on Wednesday (29/7) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

The Indonesian Advocate Congress (Kongres Advokat Indonesia –KAI) asserted advocate organization as amended by the Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) in Court Verdict Number 101/PUU-VII/2009 dated December 30, 2009 was yet established. The mandate of advocate organization as stipulated in Article 28 (1) Act Number 18 Year 2003 of Advocates and Court Verdict Number 101 was yet realized due to it never conducted either by the Indonesian Advocate Association (Perhimpunan Advokat Indonesia –PERADI) and the KAI.

It was stated by President of the Indonesian Advocate Congress Indra Sahnun Lubis when he presented as Related Parties at judicial review session on Act of Advocates, on Wednesday (29/7) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. The Case Number 32/PUU-XIII/2015 was filed by several advocates Ikhwan Fahrojih et al. who felt detrimental by the enactment of Article 28 (1) and (2) Act of Advocates.

Indra was questioned the legal basis which stated the PERADI as single advocate organization by de jure. Whereas, Indra added, prevailed advocate organizations by de facto were the PERADI and the KAI. “By de jure, the only advocate organization as referred in Article 28 (1) Act of Advocates and Constitutional Court Verdict No. 101/PUU-VII/2009 is yet established,” said him in front of Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

At the session, Indra revealed his hope that the KAI and the PERADI could unite in a single forum. “That is our hope, we as advocate organization and advocates willing to unite to be stronger. We could supervise government policies which contrary to the legislation and we could criticize it. That is our hope, Your Honor,” explained him.

Exploring the testimony, Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar asked about the attempt conducted for unifying advocate organization. “During the inauguration of single forum referred, it has no name. It is as single forum of advocate organization. Is the board already consisted and announced during the inauguration? Is there any articles of association for the single forum referred?” asked Patrialis.

Answering the question, Indra said the process of unifying which had been done was never discussed on the structure of its organization. The articles of association were also yet formed. “There is no discussion on organization structure, no articles of association, and no board. Then it is inaugurated as the PERADI. That is my objection; I strike out (the name, ed) in front of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and he is not objected and not prohibited. It later turns out that the board established one week after that and announced; we didn’t included in the single forum. That is discriminative,” explained Indra.    

After listening to KAI testimony, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court said today session was the last session on this case. “Well, entire series of session of Case Number 32/PUU-XIII/2015 is over. So the conclusion; Applicant conclusion, Government conclusion, House of Representatives conclusion, and entire Related Parties conclusion, of the series of session could be submitted to Court’s Registrar. No more session of this case,” said Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.

In the petition, the Applicant argued recently there were two advocate organizations which claimed as single advocate organization based on Act of Advocates; the PERADI and the KAI. As known, Act of Advocates mandated the establishment of single advocate organization. It occurred due to dissatisfaction of some advocates as the result of intransparent and injustice PERADI board election, by giving equal vote for entire members.

According to the Applicant, it was understandable if the election process for initial period (2005-2010) was enacted by appointment conducted by eight prevailed advocate organizations; the Association of Indonesian Advocates (Asosiasi Advokat Indonesia –AAI), the Indonesian Bar Association (Ikatan Advokat Indonesia –IKADIN), the Union of Indonesian Lawyers (Ikatan Penasihat Hukum Indonesia –IPHI), the Union of Indonesian Advocates and Lawyers (Himpunan Advokat dan Pengacara Indonesia –HAPI), the Indonesian Lawyers Union (Serikat Pengacara Indonesia –SPI), the Association of Indonesian Legal Consultants (Asosiasi Konsultan Hukum Indonesia –AKHI), the Union of Stock Exchange Law Consultants (Himpunan Konsultan Hukum Pasar Modal –HKHPM). It because the time limit given was very brief; two years since the enactment of Act of Advocates. However, the appointment should not conduct on the next election, in which the time was long enough to prepare the election by one man one vote system. (Lulu Anjarsari/Prasetyo Adi N)

---