---

Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, Manahan M. P. Sitompul, and Wahiduddin Adams at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Tuesday (3/11/2020) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another examination hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 in the Plenary Courtroom. The petition No. 83/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by advocate intern Wenro Haloho.

At the petition revision hearing led by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Petitioner’s attorney Dora Nina Lumban Gaol said the legal standing and constitutional interest. She also stated that the petition’s subject matter differed from those of cases No. 019/PUU-I/2003 and 79/PUU-XVI/2018, while case No. 84/PUU-XIII/2015 had a different substance.

She added that the petition added an elaboration that the Court had affirmed that there had been precedents, both in terms of practice and theory, of the Court changing its stance in a judicial review case. She also said there is an additional description regarding the age limit of advocate candidates in the United States.

“The petitum was changed to read that [the Petitioner requests that the Court] grant the entirety of the petition; declare Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law to be in violation of Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding; and order the Government to publish this decision in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia,” said Lumban Gaol virtually.

Also read: Provision on Advocate’s Age Limit Challenged 

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner through attorney Dora Nina Lumban Gaol challenged 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.

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. 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.

Writer: Utami Argawati
Editor: Nur R.
PR:  Tiara Agustina
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 11/06/2020 21:33 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.

---