Petitioners Rido Pradana and Nurul Fauzi delivering the revision points of judicial review petition of the Advocate Law, Thursday (18/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The petition revision hearing of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates was held by the Constitutional Court on Thursday afternoon (18/10). The petition No. 79/PUU-XVI/2018 was submitted by Rido Pradana and Nurul Fauzi from the Legal Aid Institute for the Ansor Youth Movement. 

Petitioner Rido Pradana confirmed to the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih that there was no revision to the petition. "So we stand by our previous petition and did not make any improvements, Your Honor," said Rido.

The Petitioners submitted several pieces of evidence that were approved by the panel of justices. Justice Enny also confirmed that the petition would be processed in the Justices\' Deliberation Meeting, and the Petitioners would later be notified. "In that case, I will approve proofs P-1 and P-4. Then, from the panel, is there something you would like to ask? No? Well, if the panel of justices doesn’t have anything to add, then we will deliver what has taken place in the hearings to this day to the Justices\' Deliberation Meeting (RPH). And then we will see how the report is followed up. Both of you, please wait for further notice," she said. 

The Petitioners had previously argued that several provisions in the Advocate Law potentially harmed the rights of the Petitioners. It was petitioned for judicial review to the Constitutional Court. However, the Petitioners observed some differences between the current and the past petitions, making the current petition not nebis in idem.

The Petitioners mentioned the Constitutional Court Decision No. 19/PUU-I/2003 that outlined the Petitioners\' petition. The Petitioners of that case had argued that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d had caused discrimination for law graduates aged 21 or 22 years, so it was contrary to Article 27 paragraph (1) juncto Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. 

Then the past Petitioners filed a second petition challenging the Advocate Law in 2015, then Decision No. 884/PUU-VIII/2015 was made. The Petitioners at that time had argued that the Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law had caused discrimination and uncertainty because there were no maximum requirements to become an advocate.

Meanwhile, the current Petitioners argued that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law had caused discrimination for the Petitioners to become advocates and prevented the Petitioners from having equal opportunities to work as advocates, so it was contrary to Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.  

In addition, the Petitioners argued that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g of the Advocate Law had caused uncertainty for the Petitioners to become advocates, so it was contrary to Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)