Indra Sofian (Petitioner) handing additional evidence to the court officer at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Monday (11/6/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates against the 1945 Constitution was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, November 6, 2023 in one of the panel courtrooms. The case No. 138/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Indra Sofian, a first chief investigator at the Directorate of Partnership Supervision, Deputy for Law Enforcement, Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU).

At the hearing, the Petitioner said that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g of the Advocates Law had harmed him due to mandatory internship of at least two years at an advocate office when he has experience as an investigator the Commission for the Supervision of Business Competition (KPPU) as an administrative law enforcement agency.

“[My] constitutional losses are detailed on page six. [I am] an individual citizen who has the constitutional right to file a judicial review petition,” he explained before the panel of justices led by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra.

He also said that in the background of the petition, he had added the Constitutional Court Decision No. 54/PUU-XVIII/2020, particularly paragraph 3.10.1 page 47. “[I] include the definition of internship. [I] also added the difference between [my] petition and previous ones, which are listed on page four,” he said.

Also read: KPPU Investigator Challenges Advocate Requirements

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner conveyed that he had suffered a loss due to the aforementioned provision. He has had more than 10 years of experience as an investigator, a law enforcement officer, at KPPU. Moreover, according to the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI), retired law enforcers and military personnel who are qualified to practice as advocates do not need to take an internship at an advocate office. He also argues that his status is not a “civil servant” or a state official, so he should not be prohibited from becoming an advocate.

Based on these reasons, the Petitioner requests that the Constitutional Court declare Article 3 paragraph (1) letters c and g of the Advocate Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : Tahlitha Laela/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.

---