Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra reading the opinion of the Court in the judicial review hearing of Advocate Law on Thursday (14/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review of Article 25 of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates (Advocate Law), Thursday (14/12). The principal issue of Case No. 89/PUU-XV/2017 was considered unreasonable by law. "Rejects the Petitioner’s petition entirelyy," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat, accompanied by eight other judges.

Batara Paruhum Radjagukguk as the Petitioner works as an advocate. He requested that the use of toga be mandatory for advocates in all cases in court because so far the obligation to wear a toga only applies in trials of criminal cases. The current condition raises legal uncertainty and different treatments. According to the Petitioner, the toga is the characteristic of lawyers as law enforcers. Not wearing it will diminish the image and identity of lawyers as law enforcers.

With regard to the request, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra who read the opinion of the Court stated that the reason of lack of confident and poise if not wearing a toga does not mean that the norm of the law as contained in Article 25 of the Advocate Law is necessarily contrary to the 1945 Constitution. Among advocates, confidence and poise are not solely determined by the clothing or attributes used, but by the capacity and integrity of advocates in carrying out their professional duties and responsibilities.

"The capacity and integrity in carrying out these professional duties and responsibilities will truly place the advocate as an honorable profession (officium nobile) in the eyes of the public, especially justice seekers (justitiabelen). So it is not because of the attribute factor alone," he said.

If the case had been granted, Justice Saldi added, it could potentially lead to disharmony because it can psychologically lead to perceptions of imbalances or inequalities between parties, especially in civil cases of interparty nature. Therefore, he continued, until today the applicable civil procedure law does not embrace verplichte procureur stelling. This means that the parties are not required to be represented by a lawyer who is an advocate, so there is a possibility in which one party in a civil case is represented by an advocate while the other does not employ a legal counsel.

"Meanwhile, the obligation of an advocate to wear a toga in a criminal case is to show equality between the accused (accompanied by an advocate) and the public prosecutor representing the state. This is what distinguishes it from a civil case," he said. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)