Chief Justice Suhartoyo discussing with Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra during the ruling hearing for case No. 138/PUU-XXI/2023, Thursday (12/21/2023). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The constitutional justices held that eliminating the internship process as one of the mandatory requirements for prospective advocates, despite them having prior experience as law enforcement, cannot be justified since advocates not only potentially act as legal counsels in criminal cases, but must also have comprehensive knowledge of both formal and material laws in the public and private domains, the Constitutional Court (MK) held in the material judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, delivered by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat at the ruling hearing on Thursday, December 21, 2023.

To the arguments of the Petitioner of case No. 138/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court emphasized mandatory internship for prospective advocates. If eliminated, regardless of the prospective advocates’ prior experience in law enforcement agencies including administrative legal agencies, the resulting advocates would not have extensive competency in procedural laws and material laws of all of Indonesia’s judicial system. Therefore, Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g of the Advocate Law has not led to legal uncertainty and preferential treatment before the law, which the Petitioner had alleged to be against Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

“The Court adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo delivering the verdict for the petition 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).

Also read:

KPPU Investigator Challenges Advocate Requirements

KPPU Investigator Revises Petition on Advocate Law

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       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
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.

---