---

Advocates in the pronouncement hearing of the Decision Number 35/PUU-XVI/2018 on Thursday (28/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Manto.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The constitutionality issue of the advocate organization as regulated in Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law was decided and affirmed by the Constitutional Court (MK) in Decision Number 014/PUU-IV/2006 dated November 30, 2006. In that ruling, the Court affirmed that Peradi, or the Indonesian Advocates Association is the only advocate profession organization with eight authorities.

Therefore, the constitutional justices rejected the entire petition for the judicial review of Law No. 18/2003 on Advocates filed by advocates Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, Shalil Mangara Sitompul, Gunadi Handoko, Rynaldo P. Batubara, Ismail Nganggon, and advocate candidate Iwan Kurniawan in Decision No. 35/PUU-XVI/2018. The pronouncement hearing took place on Thursday (28/11/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. “The verdict adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners’ petition for the entirety,” said Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman.

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the Court stated that PERADI (Indonesian Advocates Association) is the only advocate profession organization that is authorized to organize special training for the advocate profession, test advocate candidates, appoint advocates, create the advocate’s code of ethics, form an honorary council, form a supervisory commission, conduct supervision, and dismiss advocates in line with Constitutional Court Decision No. 66/PUU-VIII/2010 dated June 27, 2011. Other advocate organizations currently operational, he added, cannot be banned because Article 28 and Article 28E paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution guarantee freedom of association and assembly.

"However, 319 other advocate organizations do not have the authority to exercise the eight authorities, which have been explicitly considered as the stance of the Court in its decisions relating to advocate organizations," Justice Suhartoyo explained.

Building Honor

Justice Suhartoyo also said that in relation to the authority of swearing in advocates, in the future advocate organizations other than Peradi must immediately adjust to Peradi. Because, explained Suhartoyo, Peradi as the only container advocate profession which is inherent in eight authorities including the authority to appoint an advocate.

The Court\'s assertion of advocate organizations through the legal consideration of some of its earlier decisions comes from the strong desire to build advocacy as a noble profession, which can be realized by improving integrity, competence, and professionalism, especially to those who use the services of professional advocates.

The Court was of the opinion that the constitutionality of advocate organizations as meant in the Advocate Law in the a quo case had been concluded, therefore it is no longer relevant to review. Any issues related to advocate organizations are concrete cases and were not under purview of the Constitutional Court. "So the Court considered the Petitioners\' arguments irrelevant to the subject matter of the petition and were legally groundless," Justice Suhartoyo explained.

The Petitioners 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. (Sri Pujianti/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---