A judicial review hearing of Advocate Law at the Constitutional Court, Tuesday (5/11) examining petitioner’s petition revision. Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

Jakarta, MKRI—The Constitutional Court once again held a judicial review of Article 3 letter g of law Number 18 of 2003 on Advocate (Advocate Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia on Tuesday, November 5, 2024, at the Panel Courtroom. Masail Ishmad Mawaqif filed the petition.

The heading agenda was to examine the petition revision of Case Number 148/PUU-XXII/2024. Masail Ishmad Mawaqif (petitioner), in the hearing, stated that Article 3 letter g of the Advocate Law is against Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2), and Article 31 of the 1945 Constitution.

"For revision, the identity of the Petitioner is considered to be read out. In the section on the authority of the Constitutional Court, there are additions to the PMK (Regulation of the Constitutional Court) as previously suggested. We also added relevant decisions, namely Decisions 106, 138, and 79, on page six. In the legal standing section, there are several additions to point letter m on page 10," Masail explained in a hearing led by the Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Saldi Isra, along with Justice Anwar Usman and Justice Arsul Sani.

Furthermore, Masail outlined the reasons for his petition. First, he states that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g is contrary to Article 28C paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution because it restricts the right to develop oneself based on the education obtained. Secondly, on page 13, he argues that Article 3 paragraph (1) is contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1), which guarantees equality before the law, particularly in access to the law. Thirdly, on page 20, Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g is considered to contradict Article 28H paragraph (2) related to convenience and affirmative action for regions with limited access.

Fourth, on page 23, Masail considers that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g violates Article 31 paragraph (1), which guarantees the right to education as the government's responsibility. Fifth, on page 26, institutions such as advocate offices, prosecutor's offices, courts, police, and government offices are institutions that should be able to carry out pro Justitia functions for internship activities, as referred to in Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g.

Also read:

Internship Requirement for Advocate Candidates Deemed Ambiguous

I the preliminary hearing of the case on Wednesday, Masail argued that Article 3 letter g of the Advocate Law contradicts Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28H paragraph (2), and Article 31 of the 1945 Constitution.

In a concrete case, Masail recounted that he had been an apprentice in the trial recording department of the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) for three consecutive years. He assumed that an internship begins when a person has completed studies at the Faculty of Law or after conducting Special Education for the Advocate Profession (PKPA), or after taking the Advocate Professional Examination (UPA). From these requirements, Masail has carried out PKPA as required by Article 3 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law. However, the norm is not explicitly explained in the derivative rules on the exact implementation time of the internship. It creates confusion for every law student in starting the internship.

To further confuse the Petitioner, so far, the rules for implementing internships have been left to the advocate organization ('AO'), as stipulated in the Indonesian Advocates Association Regulation No. 1 of 2015 on the Implementation of Advocate Internships. However, many AOs still have not clearly regulated the rules of this internship; even the number of AOs and advocate offices makes it difficult for the Petitioner to apply for an internship at one of the advocate offices with different backgrounds from the advocate organization.

“For this reason, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g of the Advocates Law is not contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia insofar as it is interpreted as ‘the implementation of internships can be carried out at institutions that carry out pro justitia functions,’” Masail said when reading out one of the petitums.

 

Author: Utami Argawati.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Fauzan F.

Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario

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.

---