Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra chairing the panel at the judicial review hearing of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Thursday (10/13/2022). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

Thursday, October 13, 2022 | 13:03 WIB

JAKARTA (MKRI)—Another judicial review hearing of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates took place in the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday, October 13, 2022 in the panel courtroom.

Before the Court virtually, legal counsel Saut Hamonangan Turnip affirmed the revisions to the petition following the justice panel’s advice at the preliminary hearing. “The first is the posita section on page 15 point a on the tenure limit of the chairperson of the advocate organization, which is regulated by law, not the organization’s statute/bylaw,” Turnip said.

Point a, he said, explains that the tenure limit of the chairperson of the advocate organization must be regulated by law, not by the organization’s statute/bylaw. “Point I is that based on Article 5 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law, as free and independent law enforcers advocates are guaranteed by law and statutory regulations. Point 2, based on the article, advocates are one of the three other law enforcers, thus are one of the instruments in the judicial process that have an equal position with other law enforcers in upholding law and justice. This equal position is not only limited to law enforcement but naturally the management of advocate organizations,” he explained.

Turnip said a Constitutional Court decision affirmed the advocate’s equality to other law enforcers such as public prosecutors and police officers. As such, their appointment, dismissal, and tenure must be equally regulated by law.

Also read: Three-Period Limit of Chair of Advocate Organization Challenged

At the preliminary hearing for case No. 91/PUU-XX/2022 on Tuesday, September 27, advocate Zico Leonard Djagardo Simajuntak challenged a provision on the term of advocate organization’s chairperson in Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates.

He argued that, factually, there was no legal certainty relating to the term limit and leadership regeneration of the advocate organization. Senior advocates such as Hotman Paris Hutapea had also expressed their disagreement. Hutapea, the Petitioner revealed, had also questioned the leadership of the three-term Peradi (Association of Indonesian Advocates) chairman Otto Hasibuan, who had changed the organization’s statute/bylaw to legitimate the three-term limit.

The Petitioner argued that the lack of checks and balances mechanism in the article could lead to authoritarianism. Therefore, a clear term limit is necessary in order to prevent potential abuse of power, which could stem from personal ambition, that would harm the members, cause internal division, and keep professional advocates with integrity from advancing the organization.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 28 paragraph (2) of Advocate Law unconstitutional as long as it is not interpreted as “The chairman of the advocate organization shall take office for two terms at the most and afterward cannot be reelected in the same position and cannot hold a position of a chairman of a political party concurrently, both in the central and regional levels.”

Writer        : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 10/18/2022 08:00 WIB

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

---