Wahyu Nugroho as Petitioner delivering the principal points of the petition revision of the judicial review of the Advocate Law, Tuesday (24/7) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Petitioners of the judicial review of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates submitted a number of revisions of the petition in accordance with the recommendation by the Constitutional Court (MK) Justices in the previous session. Wahyu Nugroho as Petitioner explained one of the revisons made regarding the legal standing. 

"Our legal standing is as individuals. So, do we [did not use] an institutional position. However, for the domicile, we still enter the LKBH which is located at Jalan Prof. Soepomo Number 84, Tebet, South Jakarta," said Wahyu to the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Court Justice Suhartoyo in the follow-up hearing on the Advocate Law, on Tuesday (24/7). 

The subsequent revision made by the Petitioners is a new list of differences of reasons compared to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 26/PUU-XI/2013. The reason for that petition is the limitation of advocate immunity right in the court, which after the verdict reads, "inside and outside the court." Meanwhile, in the current case, the right of immunity inside and outside the courtroom affects the assurance of legal protection and legal certainty. 

Wahyu added, in Decision No. 26/PUU-XI/2013, it reads "insecurity and fear for the Petitioners to do or not to do something to defend the interests of clients outside the court." Furthermore post-Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 26/PUU-XI/2013 after the addition of the word "outside" expanded the meaning, where the right of immunity on the one hand is protected both inside and outside the court. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the legal certainty of advocates is threatened by the absence of good faith assessment by the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization, which is urgent. 

As for the current case, Wahyu said, the Petitioners handling the clients’ civil cases may be seen as a harmful action although the client does not necessarily understand the elements of the action against the law. In addition, the parameter of good faith needs to be decided first through the mechanism of the ethical hearing by the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization. 

The Petitioners also added a factual case experienced by their colleagues, who is also an advocate in Manado, Sachlan Kurusi and Sadiq Ghani. They became victims when declared suspects by the prosecutor in a land sale case. After that, they were declared as defendants and ultimately convicted under the decision of the Manado District Court. The incident created anxiety, fear, and inconvenience for the Petitioners as advocates in performing duties in the interest of the client\\'s defense, thus becoming less optimal in defending the client\\'s interest. This was a result of the prosecutor establishing them as suspects without prior appraisal of good faith by the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization. 

"Based on that incident, any person, either a client, former client, or state apparatus may at any time report on suspicion of a crime to the police without any mechanism by the Honorary Council of the Advocate Organization in the form of ethics hearing. In addition, it does not reflect a state of law as mentioned in Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, in which the legal process mechanism [by the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization ] must first take place in order to obtain judgment and decision, including any treatment degrading the human dignity," said Wahyu on the petition revision of Case No. 56/PUU-XVI/2018. 

The review of Article 16 of the Advocate Law was submitted by Wahyu Nugroho, Deri Hafizh, and Rudi Heryandi Nasution. The Petitioners, who work as advocates and legal consultants at the Legal Consultation and Legal Aid Institute (LKBH) of the Sahid University Jakarta, explained in their petition that the provision of the a quo article have been reviewed by the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 26/PUU-XI/2013. The Court granted the petition, so the a quo provision changed with the addition of the phrase "outside", which 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 and outside the trial." 

The Petitioners considered the addition of the word "outside" resulting in the expansion of the meaning of advocate\\'s immunity right. On the one hand, advocates are protected both in court and out of court. However, on the other hand, the a quo article also has legal uncertainty, where the legal protection of an advocate could be threatened if they did not receive a "good faith" rating by the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization. This puts the integrity and moral responsibility of the Petitioners at stake if the phrase "good faith" is not assessed with objective parameters by the Honorary Council of Advocate Organization. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)