Ahluddin Saiful Ahmad as expert presented by the Petitioners of case No. 52/PUU-XVI/2018 of the judicial review of the Advocate Law delivering his expertise in the hearing on Wednesday (7/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates, Wednesday (7/11). The hearing of cases No. 52 and 56/PUU-XVI/2018 was to hear the statements of the expert and witness for the Petitioners.

Ahluddin Saiful Ahmad, who was presented by the Petitioners of case No. 52/PUU-XVI/2018, stated that Article 16 of the Advocate Law questioned by the Petitioners was multi-interpretative. "When does the phrase \'may not be prosecuted\' in Article 16 apply? When associated with the phrase \'in good faith.\' That is, have the legislators thought [about it] before or not? In legal interpretation, there is the a contrario interpretation or interpreting something in reverse," he explained before the panel of justices led by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman.

Ahmad said that interpreted in a contrario manner, Article 16 of the Advocate Law signifies that an advocate may be prosecuted as long as the lawsuit argues that the advocate has done something in bad faith. "What does it mean? This means that I can give an opinion that this is a useless article," he said.

The Petitioners had previously 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. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)