---

 

 

 

The Indonesian Law University Leaderships Association challenged Article 2 (1) and Article 3 (1) letter f Act No. 18 Year 2003 of Advocates (UU Advokat). The Association’s Attorney Arrisman delivered petition points in preliminary session of Case No. 95/PUU-XIV/2016, on Wednesday (19/10).

Arrisman argued the Applicant’s constitutional rights were harmed by the Articles. The Articles stated as followed:

Article 2 (1) “Those who able to be appointed as advocate is undergraduate whose high education background is law background and enrolls in advocate special education held by advocate organization.” (“Yang dapat diangkat sebagai advokat adalah sarjana yang berlatar belakang pendidikan tinggi hukum dan setelah mengikuti pendidikan khusus profesi advokat yang dilaksanakan oleh organisasi advokat.”).  

Article 3 (1) “Passing test held by advocate organization.” (“Lulus ujian yang diadakan oleh organisasi advokat.”).

 

According to the Applicant, both norms have hampered citizen to get standard and guarantee on recognized and accountable education quality, therefore the norms contrary to Article 28C (1) and Article 28 (1) the 1945 Constitution.

“Article 2 (1) and Article 3 (1) letter f Act No. 18 Year 2003 ignores citizen’s right to recognition, guarantee, protection, and fair legal certainty, therefore the Articles contrary to the mandate of Article 28D (1) the 1945 Constitution,” Arrisman added. 

The Applicant assessed that implementation of advocate education is the authority of law university as stipulated in Article 31 (3) the 1945 Constitution. They argued that advocate organization is profession organization as regulated in Article 1 number 4 Act of Advocates, rather than education organization. They further argued that entire education activities conducted by advocate organization are a form of distortion.

Justice Panel Input

Responding Applicant’s argument, Constitutional Justice Aswanto assessed that Applicant’s constitutional loss wasn’t clearly seen in posita (petition argument). “I have read Applicant’s posita multiple times, however I cannot conclude about your loss. Even, I get impression that Applicant tries to mix up between norms of Act of National Education System with norms of Act of High Education,” said Aswanto.

Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar advised the Applicant to elaborate more about formal juridical argument which explained the Articles reviewed hamper citizen to be recognized as advocate. “Which Article regulate that the authority to conduct (profession, ed.) education, including advocate education is only in the hands of university and other entities has no authority in it?” said Patrialis.  

Justice Panel then informed the Applicant to submit petition revision within 14 days. The next session of this Case is scheduled to examine petition revision. (Nano Tresna Arfana/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

 

---