Petitioner Haerul Kusuma (right) 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 g of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates. The case No. 106/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Haerul Kusuma, a consultant. He challenged the provision on the requirement of two consecutive years of internship at an advocate’s office for becoming an advocate.

He wished that the norm be interpreted as “has worked/is working or has interned/is interning for at least 2 (two) consecutive years at an advocate’s office starting from entering the fourth semester in a law bachelor degree program or before the prospective advocate be appointed an advocate.”

In its legal opinion, delivered by Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani, the Court stated that higher education studies should be differentiated from the implementation thereof through internship at an advocate’s office, despite the two being complimentary. “The internship at an advocate’s office, which is a special requirement for advocates under Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates is part of the practice that aims at providing professional experience of an advocate,” he said at the ruling hearing on Thursday, September 26, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

The Court was of the opinion that in order to ensure that the educational process in higher education can be completed, the internship process to become an advocate after students receives an undergraduate law degree is appropriate and is not mixed with the internship during the study period. The Court needed to emphasize this in Decision No. 70/PUU-XVI/2018, which was later reinforced in Decision No. 138/PUU-XXI/2023. Thus, the two-year internship for prospective advocates must be understood as part of the process to become an advocate after graduating with an undergraduate law degree.

Different calculation of the internship period in various advocate organizations is the advocate organizations’ prerogative to ensure that there is no deviation from the provision of internship in the advocate’s office which, under the elucidation to Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g of Law No. 18 of 2003, means that it is at least two consecutive years before the prospective advocate is appointed an advocate. In short, what was argued by the Petitioner was a matter of norm implementation and not a norm constitutionality issue.

Also read:

University Student Submits Petition on Internship Regulations under Advocate Law

Petitioner Asks Govt to Facilitate the Establishment of the Advocate Organization Honoarary Council

Law consultant Haerul Kusuma challenged Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g, Article 26 paragraph (1), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 29 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law. He claimed to have been harmed by Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g, which reads, “has interned/is interning for at least 2 (two) consecutive years at an Advocate’s office” because practical experience that supports the ability, skills, and ethics in carrying out his profession as a prospective advocate is limited to formal internships only, without considering other more relevant experiences, including the calculation of unclear internship periods. He argued that the article should be interpreted as “has worked/is working or has interned/is interning for at least 2 (two) consecutive years at an advocate’s office starting from entering the fourth semester in a law bachelor degree program or before the prospective advocate be appointed an advocate.”

Author            : Mimi Kartika
Editor             : N. Rosi
PR                 : Fauzan 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.

---