Suhardi Somomoeljono as expert for the Federation of Advocates of the Indonesian Advocates Federation (Ferari) after giving his statement on Law Number 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Monday (26/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Misinterpretation of the phrase "advocate organization" of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates among advocates in Indonesia means that advocates and their affiliated organizations need to organize so that the matter of interpretation of advocate organization can find a fair meeting point. This is to improve the quality of the advocate profession as mandated by the law.

This was conveyed by Suhardi Somomoeljono\'s, who was presented by the Indonesian Advocates Federation (Ferari) as expert for the Relevant Party in the further judicial review hearing of the Advocate Law on Monday (26/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

In addition, Suhardi traced the long history of advocate organizations, prior to the birth of the Advocate Law that there had been the Working Committee of Indonesian Advocates (KKAI) as an organization for all advocates as stipulated in the Advocate Code of Ethics. Furthermore, Suhardi stated that the regulation stated that the Working Committee of Indonesian Advocates represented advocate professional organizations—Indonesian Advocates Society (Ikadin), Indonesian Advocates Association (AAI), Indonesian Legal Counselor Association (IPHI), Association of Indonesian Legal Counsellors and Advocates (HAPI), Indonesian Lawyers Union (SPI), Indonesian Legal Consultants Assocation (AKHI), and the Capital Market Legal Consultants Association (HKHPM)—in accordance with the Joint Statement dated February 11, 2002 in relation to advocates\' professional relationship with state institutions and the Government.

So, according to Suhardi, KKAI ex-officio accommodates the eight advocate organizations, which emerged before the formulation of the Advocate Law. "Thus, let\'s end the long-standing debate of the existing advocate organizations, because, in essence, the advocate organizations\' parent organization has existed before the Advocate Law was formed, and consists of eight advocate organizations that are legitimate de facto and de jure. And after the emergence of the Advocate Law, Peradi, KAI, and other advocate organizations remain de facto legitimate advocate organizations," said Suhardi before the hearing chaired by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

The Petitioners of case No. 35/PUU-XVI/2018 had previously 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 closing the session, Justice Anwar reminded that the hearing would be continued on Monday, December 17, 2018 at 11.00 a.m. to hear the statements of the experts for both the Petitioners and IKADIN Roberto Hutagalung (8th Relevant Party) along with one witness. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)