---

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh reading out the Court’s legal considerations in the ruling hearing of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Wednesday (25/11/2020) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates on Wednesday, November 25, 2020 in the plenary courtroom virtually. The petition was filed by advocate intern Wenro Haloho, who challenged Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law that required an advocate to be at least 25 years old.

Also read: Provision on Advocate’s Age Limit Challenged 

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Court stated that the Petitioner’s argument that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law violated Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution differed from that of previous petitions, but the substance regarding the age limit for advocates to which the petition was based was the same as that in case No. 019/PUU-I/2003, which the Court had ruled. Therefore, the Court quoted the Decision No. 019/PUU-I/2003 dated October 18, 2004 that rejected the petition.

The Petitioner argued that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law was against Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution because discriminating against law graduates under 25 who had followed a Special Education of Professional Advocates (PKPA) and had the competency and capabilities to become advocates. The Court in the previous decision stressed that discrimination was treating different things equally or treating the same things differently. However, treating different things differently doesn’t constitute discrimination. Discriminating regulations means unequal treatment based on race, ethnicity, religion, economic status, or other social status stipulated in Article point 3 of Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights.

The Court believes the requirements for advocates in Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law was indiscriminating because the age limit is not based on race, ethnicity, religion, group, economic status, social status, sex, language, or political affiliation. In fact, it is aimed at guaranteeing that advocates have emotional or psychological maturity, aside from academic maturity. Therefore, the argument that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law is against Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution is legally groundless. Regardless of the background to the petition, the Petitioner’s petitum that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law be declared unconstitutional and not legally binding would cause legal vacuum on the provision on the age limit of advocates.

Also read: Prospective Advocate Revises Legal Standing 

The petition No. 83/PUU-XVIII/2020 was filed by advocate intern Wenro Haloho. Through attorney Dora Nina Lumban Gaol, he 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 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.

He believed the norm led 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. The Petitioner believed that if the age limit aimed to improve academic maturity, what should be considered was the duration of internship, not the minimum age of prospective advocates, because academic maturity can be reached before prospective advocates reach the minimum age. 

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

Translation uploaded on 11/27/2020 15:56 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.

---