Petitioners attending the preliminary judicial review hearing of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates on Wednesday (9/5) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas/Ifa.

The high number of professional organizations for the advocate is seen as a result of the enactment of several articles in Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates that are multi-interpretive. This prompted a number of advocates to review the Advocate Law to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Wednesday (9/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 

A number of advocates—Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, Shalil Mangara Sitompul, Gunadi Handoko, Rynaldo P. Batubara, Ismail Nganggon, and advocate candidate by the name of Iwan Kurniawan—are registered as Petitioners of the case No. 35/PUU-XVI/2018. The Petitioners, represented by Bahrul Ilmi, argue that the 34 articles in the a quo law along the phrase \'advocate organizations\' contain more than one meaning of advocate organizations, and so are multi-interpretive. Thus, the norms do not qualify for good constitutionality of the law, that is, clear, solid, and complete. "Therefore, in order for the norms to provide legal certainty, the Petitioners requested that the phrase \'advocate organizations\' be reviewed against the norm of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," explained Bahrul Ilmi, who attended the panel session presided over by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo . 

In the petition, the Petitioners also argue that the legal standing is implied by the Petitioners’ constitutional rights having been impaired by the enactment of the phrase \'advocate organizations\'. Because, in practice, the phrase has been manipulated by various parties to allow the emergence of various advocate organizations such as the Association of Indonesian Advocates (Peradi), the Association of Indonesian Advocates of the Republic of Indonesia (Peradri), the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI), and others, that claim to be legitimate as well as authorized to exercise the authority as regulated in the Advocate Law. These organizations have provided education to prospective advocates, appointed advocates, applied for advocate oath in the high court, recruited members, and supervised and imposed sanctions on advocates. 

As parallel reasoning, Bahrul explained the analogy with Law No. 29/2004 on Medical Practice for physicians or Act No. 11/2014 on Engineering for engineers. He believes Peradi should be the only professional organization to accommodate advocates in Indonesia. Thus, constitutionally there should be an affirmation that the professional organization of advocates according to the Advocate Law is Peradi. Indeed, implicitly, the Constitutional Court has given consideration that Peradi is the only professional advocate organization as set forth in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 103/PUU-XI/2013. 

Strengthening Argument

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra provided input for improvement considering there have been 19 similar judicial review cases. Therefore, the Petitioners are expected to show a different argument, especially related to the point of reference that is Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which is used as the constitutional foundation by the Petitioners. "The argument must be strong because the foundation is still the same, namely Article 28D paragraph (1), similar to that of past cases. So, find a different reason; if there is no difference, it could be nebis in idem later," he suggested. 

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan Sitompul also requested that the Petitioners strengthen their argument about advocate professional organizations being emphasized in the petition. "Are the advocate professional organizations being emphasized? So, can there be multiple advocate organizations? So, this ‘advocate professional organizations\' should be highlighted again in the petition," he said. 

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo highlighted the organizational backgrounds of the five Petitioners who are advocates. This is considered important in strengthening the argument of the Petitioners in dealing with the reality of the multiple advocate organizations in Indonesia. 

Before closing the hearing, Justice Suhartoyo reminded that the Petitioners can submit the revised petition by no later than Tuesday, May 22, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. to schedule the next hearing. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)