One of the Petitioners and the legal counsels at the ruling hearing for the material judicial review of the Advocate Law, Thursday (9/26/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the material judicial review petition of Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates in case No. 108/PUU-XXII/2024. The provision concerns the minimum age limit for advocates. Therefore, the minimum age of 25 years for advocates remains constitutional.

Delivering the Court’s legal opinion, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra explained that the Constitutional Court Decision No. 019/PUU-IV/2003 emphasized that such a restriction may be justified by Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Age restrictions in laws are commonplace, such as the minimum age for presidential tickets, marriage, and voting. The Court sees the age 25 is an appropriate minimum age limit for advocates since to become one, one has to have psychological and emotional maturity aside from academic capacity.

“After all, in order to hone the skills of an advocate, it is necessary to have experience and practice to integrate and perfect the theoretical knowledge they have acquired in educational institutions. Additional practical knowledge and experience are obtained during apprenticeship, which takes several years,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra said at the ruling hearing on Thursday, September 26, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

After referring to the Court’s legal considerations in Decisions No. 019/PUU-1/2003, 84/PUU-XIII/2015, and 83/PUU-XVII/2020 in assessing the constitutionality of Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law, the Petitioners had used different reasons from the previous petitions, but because the substance was not different. Therefore, Justice Saldi continued, the Court did not have strong reasons to shift from its previous stance. As such, the Court’s legal opinion in the three decisions above apply mutatis mutandis to that in the a quo decision. Moreover, the Court emphasized in several decisions that both minimum and maximum age limits are the legislatures’ prerogative.

“In the context of the a quo case, after the Court examined the age limit for advocates as specified in Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law, the Court does not find that the norm violates the requirements of an open legal policy. Thus, the Petitioners’ petition is unreasonable according to law,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra declared.

Also read:

Advocate’s Minimum Age Requirement Challenged

Petitioner Compares Advocate’s Minimum Age Requirements in Malaysia, Japan, and the Netherlands

The case was filed by six advocates and three university students, who argued that their constitutional rights were harmed due to the enforcement of the a quo norm on the lower age limit for advocates. Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of Law No. 18 of 2003 reads, “To be able to be appointed as an Advocate, one must fulfill the following requirements: d. be at least 25 (twenty-five) years old.”

The Petitioners alleged that the phrase “be at least 25 years old” has prevented new law graduates from becoming advocates and realizing their aspiration to become advocates, thus reducing their rights as citizens. They said the a quo article was no longer relevant and caused real and undeniable constitutional losses.

They also argued that the article contradicted Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, which states that everyone is entitled to recognition, guarantees, protection, and certainty of a just law and equal treatment before the law. They feel that law students in Indonesia who graduate quickly at the age of 20, 21, and 22 years will be forced to be unemployed after graduation because they must be at least 25 years old to be sworn in as an advocate.

Whereas, the age of adulthood according to the Civil Code (burgerlijke wetboek) is 21 years, 18 years according to the Criminal Code, and 19 years according to Law No. 16 of 2019 on Marriage. Meanwhile, in addition to the higher age limit for becoming an advocate, Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law does not regulate the maximum age limit for anyone to become an advocate. The Petitioners argued that this could lead to a legal vacuum that becomes a loophole for practices that harm the honor and the oath of advocates as stated in Article 4 paragraph (2) of the Advocate Law.

Author              : Mimi Kartika
Editor               : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                   : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
Translators         : Yuniar Widiastuti, Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.

---