Petitioners reading out the principal points of their petition in the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of the Law on Advocates on Thursday (5/7) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK.

A number of lawyers reviewed the constitutionality of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates in the Constitutional Court (MK), Thursday (5/7). Petitioners of case No. 52/PUU-XVI/2018 question the immunity right of their profession. Yohanes Mahatma Pambudianto, Hermawanto, Herwanto, Tubagus Ikbal Nafinur Aziz, and Firly Noviansyah challenged Article 16 of the Advocate Law that reads, "Advocates may not be prosecuted civilly or criminally if they perform their profession with good faith for the interest of defending a client in the trial."

Ryan Muhammad as the legal counsel of the Petitioners claimed that Article 16 of the Advocate Law does not provide guarantee of protection and fair legal certainty for the Petitioners as advocates. According to him, in fact, there are still many cases of advocates being summoned or examined by investigators and the court, either in suspicion of committing a criminal act, or committing an unlawful act in the civil context, without going through examination by the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization. "Whereas in our opinion, referring to the Advocate Law, the immunity right of advocates is protected by the Advocate Law, and also by the Legal Aid Law," he explained.

In their petition, the Petitioners emphasized the issue of the authorities entitled to assess good faith of advocates as set forth in Article 16 of the Advocate Law. According to the Petitioners, the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization (DKOA) is the only institution entitled to properly assess the advocate\'s good faith. That is, there is a mechanism that must be taken, i.e. DKOA assessment before an approval is issued if the assessment proves that the advocate has done an action or deed that is not in good faith while carrying out their duties. The DKOA Approval is a mechanism to ptotect the advocate’s immunity right in carrying out their duty so as to be free from fear and anxiety from the subjective judgment of alleged violation of the law (civil or criminal) while performing their profession in defending their client\'s legal interests. This is, of course, also a form of guarantee and protection as well as effort in maintaining the dignity and honor of advocates.

"As the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization not only handles matters pertaining to code of ethics, it also has the authority to examine lawyers in case of alleged violation of laws and regulations, as described in Article 6 letter e of the Advocate Law," said Ryan in the hearing presided over by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

For this reason, the Petitioners requested that the Panel of Justices declare Article 16 contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and not having a binding legal force as long as it the requirement that the phrase "may not be prosecuted civilly or criminally if they perform their profession with good faith" is not interpreted as "Filing of Civil Lawsuit or Subpoena and request of inquiry in relation to an alleged offense to the Advocate who is carrying out his professional duties may be done after obtaining the decision of the assessment result from the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization."

Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra questioned the legal standing of the Petitioners. The constitutional impairment was also not elaborated in the posita. Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice M. P. Sitompul ​​requested the use of the term "Honorary Council of Advocate Organization" be used appropriately because it is already set in Article 27 of the Advocate Law. "I noted that in the petitum the term is used differently. It should not be so," he said. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)