---

Panel preliminary examination judicial review hearing of the Advocate Law, Wednesday (21/10/2020) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary examination hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates on Wednesday, October 21, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. The petition No. 83/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by advocate intern Wenro Haloho, who believes Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law that reads, “Is at least 25 (twenty-five) years old” is against Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

He believes the a quo norm potentially harms him as it has restricted him from being an advocate. He has been interning at an advocate office since February 23, 2019, but until his internship ends on February 23, 2021, he will not have reached the minimum age required by the norm.

“The Petitioner will only reach 25 years of age on November 29, 2021 to be able to become an advocate, so he will be unemployed for 9 months,” said of his attorneys, Dora Nina Lumban Gaol, to bench chair Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh alongside Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Manahan M. P. Sitompul.

Lumban Gaol said that prior to the a quo case, three cases had been filed on the same issue, i.e. No. 019/PUU-I/2003, 84/PUU-XIII/2015, dan 79/PUU-XVI/2018. However, the Petitioner of the a quo case has different background, constitutional basis, and evidence from those previous cases. 

Lumban Gaol said the norm leads to inequality before the law for prospective advocates who haven’t reached 25 years of age, which is not in line with the mandate of Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The Constitutional Court Decision No. 019/PUU-I/2003 also states that the minimum age limit for prospective advocates can be based on emotional/psychological and academic maturity. Quoting Leah H. Sommerville, the Petitioner believes that one’s emotional maturity cannot be quantified by age. In order to reach academic maturity, prospective advocates undergo field training. However, the practical experience and training they gain not always correlate with their age in relation to the minimum age required by the norm.

“If the age limit aims to improve academic maturity, what should be considered is the duration of internship, not the minimum age of prospective advocates, because academic maturity can be reached before prospective advocates reach the minimum age,” Lumban Gaol said virtually.

For that reason, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law contrary to Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding.

Previous Cases

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams said that the petition No. 79/PUU-XVI/2018 challenged the same norm. “Therefore, the Petitioner should study previous Court decisions and the background of this petition so that the subject matter of this petition doesn’t become ne bis in idem,” he explained.

Similarly, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul requested that the Petitioner elaborate his argument to set his petition apart from previous ones. He also asked the Petitioner to make an argument regarding psychological maturity in comparison to prospective prosecutors or judges. “For example, to be appointed prosecutors and judges, there are age limits. This applies to advocates. Do explain the discrimination in question. The Petitioner should not bring subjective perspectives to the judicial review case, but to focus on the purpose. It’s not a discrimination when different things are treated differently,” he said.

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh asked that the Petitioner convince the Court through philosophical, sociological, and juridical studies so that the petition doesn’t become ne bis in idem by making a comparison with what applies in other countries. He could present cases where prospective advocates under 25 years became advocates, which could convince the Court of a sound reason for the norm to be changed. Before concluding the session, Justice Foekh reminded the Petitioner to submit a revised petition no later than Tuesday, November 2, 2020 to the Registrar’s Office.

Writer: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari
PR:  Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/27/2020 14:39 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---