Djamhur as witness presented by the Relevant Party giving his statement in the judicial review hearing of the Advocate Law, Thusday (10/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Supreme Court Circular Letter (SEMA) No. 73/KMA/HK.01/IX/2015 has led to the uncontrolled proliferation of new advocate organizations. Therefore, the Supreme Court has to assume responsibility of the chaos of advocate organizations. This was conveyed by Djamhur, witness presented by the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI) Tjoetjoe Sandjaja (Relevant Party) in further hearing of the judicial review hearing of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates on Thursday (10/1/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 

Djamhur further elaborated on the case No. 35/PUU-XVI/2018 on the issue of advocate organizational chaos that must be resolved through the formation of a new Advocate Law instead of a judicial review at the Constitutional Court. “Not to mention this law has been petitioned 20 times at the Court. So, it would be a waste and can no longer be reviewed at the Court multiple times; instead a new Advocate Law must be formed. Now, that’s the appropriate [solution],” he explained in response to the petition filed by advocates Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, Shalil Mangara Sitompul, Gunadi Handoko, Rynaldo P. Batubara, Ismail Nganggon, and advocate candidate Iwan Kurniawan.

Temporary Name

In the hearing, Abdul Rahim Hasibuan as witness for the Relevant Party of KAI Siti Jamaliah elaborated that Peradi is the temporary sole organization until a national meeting (munas) of advocates consisting eight advocate organizations—the Indonesian Advocates Association (Ikadin), the Indonesian Advocates Association (AAI), the Indonesian Legal Counselor Association (IPHI), the Association of Indonesian Legal Counsellors and Advocates (HAPI), the Indonesian Lawyers Union (SPI), the Indonesian Legal Consultants Assocation (AKHI), the Capital Market Legal Consultants Association (HKHPM), and the Indonesian Syariah Lawyers Association (APSI). However, along the way, there had been differences on the implementation of national meeting to determine the advocate sole organization. As a result, there had been a discord leading to several advocate organizations withdrawing from Peradi and forming advocates national meeting committee on May 30, 2008.   

“This national meeting is the one whose results are according to the mandate of Article 28 paragraph (2) of the Advocate Law and gave birth to the advocate organization named Congress of Indonesian Advocates,” said Abdul, former Secretary General of the Indonesian Legal Counselor Association, before the hearing presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman.

Mandate of the Advocate Law

Meanwhile, John Richard Latuihamallo as witness for the Relevant Party of KAI Siti Jamaliah elaborated that KAI was formed through a congress of all Indonesian advocates as mandated by the Advocate Law. In the national meeting on May 30, 2008, he added, all advocates had held a deliberation using a one-man-one-vote method. It gave birth to KAI whose legitimacy follows the mandate of the Advocate Law. “KAI is the one following the mandate of the Advocate Law, while Peradi [did not],” said John, who had been an advocate since 1996.

In the previous hearing, 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 session, Chief Justice Anwar stated that the hearing would commence on Wednesday, January 23, 2019 at 10 a.m. to hear the statement of two experts and two witnesses for the Relevant Party Peradi. (Sri Pujianti/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)