---

Erman Umar as a relevant party from KAI led by Tjoetjoe S. Hernanto after delivering his statement in the judicial review of Law Number 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Monday (15/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held another follow-up session of the judicial review of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates on Monday (15/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The hearing of case No. 35/PUU-XVI/2018 presided over Chief Justice Anwar Usman was to listen to the statement of the House of Representatives and Relevant Parties, among others, the Indonesian Advocates Federation (Ferari), the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI), the Indonesian Advocates Association (Peradi), and the Indonesian Advocates Association (Ikadin).

One of the Relevant Parties, namely KAI led by Tjoetjoe S. Hernanto through Fadli Nasution said that the Petitioners are individual citizens and did not represent an advocate professional organization so they were not directly related to the implementation of the a quo law. 

"So, in our opinion, the Petitioners do not have a legal standing to file a quo case because in essence the formation of professional organizations does not prohibit the establishment of a particular organization. Therefore, in the subject of our petition, these advocates have been protected by law to join an advocate organization," Fadli explained. 

Three Versions of Peradi 

Meanwhile, Head of Ferari\\'s Inter-Institutional Relations and Foreign Affairs Division Eben Ezer Sitorus stated that Ferari\\'s administrators were professional organization whose foundation consisted of a group of advocates from various ethnic groups, religions, and political, economic, and cultural backgrounds in Indonesia who are characterized by religious professionals. According to him, in the present context there are three versions of Peradi. For this reason, the Petitioners\\' petition did not describe Peradi as a reference as a single organization in question. This is important because the three versions of Peradi are in a lawsuit over their validity as professional advocate organizations. "So, the Government has never limit the efforts of citizens to express their opinions through the creation of organizations," Eben explained. 

The sentiment on the three versions of Peradi was confirmed by the Relevant Party, KAI led by Tjoetjoe S. Hernanto, through Erman Umar. They stated that the Petitioners were not disadvantaged by the enactment of the a quo law because their rights were not limited and they did not have real losses. “There are three versions of Peradi, by Fauzi Hasibuan, Luhut Pangaribuan, and Junifer Girsang. Which one do the Petitioners refer to?” Erman said.

Discriminating 

On the same occasion, Peradi Chairperson Fauzi Hasibuan through Viktor W. Nadabdab said that the Relevant Party or Peradi was an advocate organization established based on the law by 8 advocate organizations in Indonesia. This organization, Viktor added, was established on December 21, 2004, as recorded in the notary deed and ratified on November 13, 2009. The Petitioners in the petition, which had been filed up to the 20 times and placed Peradi as the Relevant Party, conveyed that the facts that were made the reason for the petition are related to the phrase "advocate organization," which is regulated in the Advocate Law and is currently multi-interpretative. The Relevant Party stated that all advocate organizations are authorized to submit a copy of the decision letter on the appointment of advocates to the Supreme Court. Thus the Petitioners have the right to claim constitutional loss due to discrimination between established organizations. "So, please the Court declare the Petitioners petition granted and Peradi is the only legal advocates organization," Viktor explained. 

Harming Existence 

DPP Ikadin Chairman Todung Mulya Lubis through Maheswara Prabandono said that Ikadin was an independent advocate organization that had existed prior to the a quo law. Maheswara acknowledged that the organization from the beginning until today has been recognized by its activities in providing advocate education in various regions in Indonesia. According to him, with the request of Peradi as a single advocate organization, it would be detrimental to Ikadin, and the Petitioners\\' petitum was at odds with the Constitutional Court Decision No. 101/2009. "So, there is no causality relationship requested by the Petitioners because the Petitioner I-V has no difficulty in carrying out his profession, while Petitioner VI has not suffered a loss because if he fulfills the appointment requirements, he may choose an existing advocate organization in accordance with his constitutional rights," Maheswara added.

In addition, Maheswara also said that in the petition the Petitioners\\' request that Peradi be interpreted the only legitimate advocate professional organization did not fit the needs of current advocates and that Peradi was in fact not the only advocate professional organization.

The Petitioners had claimed that they did not have legal certainty of legal and constitutional advocate organizations to exercise the authority set forth in the Advocate Law. They argued that the norm of the phrase "advocate organizations" as set forth in the Advocate Law was currently multi-interpretive, which allowed certain parties such as the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI) and the Association of Indonesian Advocates of the Republic of Indonesia (Peradri), or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia, to provide different interpretations or other interpretations that are unconstitutional because they do not conform to the original intent or teleological purpose of the formation of the norm of the phrase "advocate organizations" as regulated by the Advocate Law. This can be explained by the interpretation of KAI in relation to advocate organizations in that the one entitled to exercise the authority set forth in the Advocate Law is "the Congress of Indonesian Advocates." KAI in this case intends to gather the Indonesian advocates in a single organization as mandated by the Advocate Law ex Article 10 letter a of the Deed of Establishment of the Organization of Congress of Indonesian Advocates.

Before concluding the hearing, Chief Justice Anwar reminded the Petitioners to give a written expert statement that would be included in the next hearing on Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11 a.m. to hear the statements by the House of Representatives, Relevant Party (Supreme Court and Ikadin), as well as two experts and three witnesses for the Petitioners. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---