The Petitioners’ legal counsels conveying the revisions to the petition at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code, Tuesday (5/30/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Article 509 Law No. 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) on Tuesday, May 30, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. The petition revision hearing for case No. 47/PUU-XXI/2023 was presided over by Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (chair), Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Wahiduddin Adams.

At the hearing, the Petitioner asserted that the a quo norm that regulates and penalizes advocates while performing their profession should have been stipulated in the revision to Law No. 18 of 2003, i.e. Law No. 19 of 2023. “So that it could have undergone special discussions with advocate organizations and comprehensive studies,” he said.

He further explained that Article 509 letter a of the Criminal Code would further strip advocates’ immunity granted by Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003.

Also read: Criminalization of Advocates on Duty Questioned

The petition was filed by Mohamad Anwar, an advocate. He challenges Article 509 of the Criminal Code, which reads, “Shall be sentenced to a maximum imprisonment of 1 (one) year or a maximum fine of category III:

a. An advocate who includes or requests to include in a letter of claim or petition for divorce or petition for bankruptcy information regarding the location of residence or the residence of the defendant or debtor, when it is known or reasonably suspected that the information is contrary to the actual situation;

b. A husband or a wife who files a lawsuit or petition for divorce that provides information that is contrary to the actual situation to the advocate as referred to in letter a: or

c. A creditor who submits a petition for bankruptcy that provides information that is contrary to the actual situation to the advocate as referred to in letter a.”

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, May 16, legal counsel Galang Brilian Putra, said the Petitioner challenges Article 509 of the Criminal Code in order to prevent the criminalization of advocates on duty so that there would be no undue casualty when the a quo norm takes effect in the next two years.

He argued that advocates have immunity while on duty with a power of attorney from their clients based on good faith. This means that as long as the advocates receive the power of attorney to defend their clients based on good faith in and out of court, they cannot be sued civilly or criminally.

Galang explained that Article 509 letters a, b, and c of the Criminal Code are correlated and if an advocate commits an act referred to in letter a, they can be criminalized. If a husband or wife commits an act referred to in letter b, the advocate handling the case can also be criminalized even if the client’s husband or wife provides the advocate with a false information.

He emphasized that Article 509 of the Criminal Code had led to legal uncertainty and threat to and fear in advocates when performing the duties of their profession and had threatened advocates’ dignity and honor. This, he argued, is contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 509 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

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.

---