Victor Santoso Tandiasa as legal counsel delivering the principal points of the petition revision for the judicial review of the Advocate Law on Wednesday (19/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates, Wednesday (18/7). The second session of Case No. 52/PUU-XVI/2018 was to examine the petition revision.

Victor Santoso Tandiasa as legal counsel said they added four new petitioners who would file material review for the same article. He argued that the addition was to accommodate others who shared the same interest. He also conveyed that he had strengthened the legal standing of the Petitioners.

"We also strengthened the legal standing for Petitioner IV, Petitioner II, and Petitioner IX. Petitioner II is a fellow advocate who [was involved] in the West Kotawaringin case, where the action taken by Petitioner II, his team, and his colleagues was not actually a crime, but it is indeed regarded as a criminal act because [it was informed as such] and the difference is very thin and then Petitioner II did not receive protection from Article 16 of the Advocate Law. As for Petitioner IX, besides [working as] an advocate, he is also a lecturer of constitutional law and Petitioner IX has confusion or uncertainty about the mechanism of the immunity right given by a quo norm," Victor explained in front of the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo.

Victor also explained the petitum revision. It previously only requested the revocation of Article 16 of the Advocate Law; now they requested that it be declared constitutionally conditional as long as the requirement is not fulfilled 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."

In the petition, the Petitioners emphasized the issue of authority 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 procedure 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 procedure to protect 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. (ARS/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)