---

DPP Ikadin Chairman Otto Hasibuan as Witness was presented by the Petitioners to give his statement in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 18 of 2003 on Advocates on Wednesday (31/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The establishment of a single organization for advocates is the right step as to facilitate the standardization of the advocate profession. This was conveyed by law expert of the Indonesian Islamic University Muhammad Arif Setiawan who was presented by the Petitioners in a follow-up judicial review hearing of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates on Wednesday (31/10) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 

Furthermore, Arif explained that in the internal life of an advocate as a respectable profession, legal protection was manifested in a professional code of ethics and choices that were protected by a professional advocate organization. This is needed so that in carrying out their duties, advocates are always guided by the principles of independence, openness, mutual respect, and must maintain the image of the advocate profession. Whereas, in the external life of an advocate, there are legislation made by the state that regulate the advocate profession, the Advocate Law. The Advocate Law is state recognition of the advocate profession, de facto and de jure. Through professional advocate organizations, advocates can meet and be fostered and supervised in carrying out their profession in accordance with the objectives of the establishment of the professional organization. 

"[The] declaration of the establishment of Peradi as the only advocate organization is legal for the following reasons: First, the declaration according to the Advocate Law is carried out within the deadline of 2 years after the ratification of the Advocate Law; second, [eight organizations in the Advocate Law signed this declaration]," Arif explained to the court on case No. 35/PUU-XVI/2018 led by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman accompanied by the eight other constitutional justices. 

Spirit of Improvement 

On the same occasion, the Head of the Supreme Court Legal and Public Relations Bureau, Jimmy Maruli, who was present as the Relevant Party, said that since the Advocate Law had been passed, there had been 20 judicial reviews at the Constitutional Court. The Supreme Court reviewed this from both sides of this case, namely the spirit of constitutional improvement of the law as well as power and interests. According to Jimmy, as the norm was so often reviewed, sociologically it could legitimize the advocate himself, thereby reducing the dignity of the advocate itself. "Regarding the Petitioners\\' argument for the need for standardization for advocate organizations, the Supreme Court supports it because it is also a means to support the Supreme Court as the highest court in Indonesia," Jimmy explained. 

Sole Forum

Meanwhile, the Indonesian Advocates Association (Ikadin) represented by Sutrisno said that since November 10, 1985 Ikadin had positioned itself as the sole forum of professional organization for advocates. As an organization of struggle, Ikadin struggled to maintain the dignity of the advocate profession. When the Advocate Law was passed, Sutrisno added, Ikadin and seven other organizations were given the task of forming an advocate organization. At that time, Ikadin held an extraordinary national meeting and agreed to form a advocate organization as a means to improve the quality of advocates. Sutrisno acknowledged that although Ikadin already had 121 branches, for the consistency as an advocate organization, Ikadin never exercised its authority like Peradi did. 

"So, the authority to appoint advocates is still left to Peradi. Therefore, [we also hope that the petition is granted]. So, there will no longer be multiple interpretations with the many definitions of the advocate organization, because this results in the deteriorating quality of advocates," explained Sutrisno. 

Declaration 

Meanwhile the DPP Ikadin Chairman Otto Hasibuan as Witness presented by the Petitioners said that Ikadin was an organization formed by the government for ease of coordination. During the reform era, Otto said, advocates had existed but there had been no law that acknowledged it so a law was planned to be drafted by seven existing advocate organizations into the Indonesian Advocate Work Committee in Sari Pacific Jakarta. Its task was to carry out advocate examinations with the Supreme Court because there had been no appointment of advocates for 6 years, to form an advocate code of ethics, and to fight for the Advocate Law. "On this basis, the Advocate Law was drafted," explained Otto. 

After the passing of the Advocate Law, each of the existing organizations, along with the Islamic Sharia Advocates Association, held a national meeting. At the meeting, it was agreed to establish and declare Peradi on December 21, 2004 and report the results of the declaration to the government, Supreme Court, and Attorney General. "Why did we choose the declaration? Because the Advocate Law did not regulate how to conduct the meeting, there were no statutes, system, and even budgetary provisions. Then, we decided that the declaration and advocate organization would be recognized by the government. So that\\'s the history," explained Otto. 

The Petitioners, advocates Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, Shalil Mangara Sitompul, Gunadi Handoko, Rynaldo P. Batubara, Ismail Nganggon, and advocate candidate Iwan Kurniawan 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 session, Chief Justice Anwar stated that the hearing would commence on Monday, November 26, 2018 at 11 a.m. to hear the statement of the House of Representatives and witnesses for the Petitioners and Ferari. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---