Petitioner’s Legal Counsel, Mario Ari Leonard Barus, delivering the petition revision during the judicial review hearing of Law Number 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Monday (11/11) at the Courtroom. Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI - The Petitioners of Case Number 150/PUU-XXII/2024 revised their petition regarding the judicial review of Article 3 paragraph (1) letter c and Article 20 paragraph (2) of Law Number 18 Year 2003 on Advocates (Advocates Law). In this case, the petition was submitted regarding the provisions prohibiting advocates from holding positions as civil servants or state officials. The Petitioners, consisting of lecturers and students of the Faculty of Law, University of Indonesia (FH UI), improved the touchstone or basis of the test as well as the petitums of their petition.

“Regarding the subject matter, go directly to the touchstone on matters of concern or attention in this review,” Petitioners' legal counsel, Mario Ari Leonard Barus, said in the petition revision hearing on Monday, November 11, 2024, in the Courtroom.

The Petitioners excluded Article 27 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia from the list of touchstones in the petition. Meanwhile, the Petitioners have included Article 28C paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution as the basis for testing in their petition.

In addition, the Petitioners also revised their petitums, which contained five points. In essence, the Petitioners requested that the rule prohibiting advocates from holding other positions be excluded for civil servants with functional positions as lecturers. In the previous petition, the Petitioners included the phrase “... with a functional position working as a lecturer at a state university” in the interpretation of Article 4 paragraph (1) letter c and Article 20 paragraph (2) of the Advocates Law.

Also read:

Prohibition for Civil Servant Lecturers to Serve as Advocates Questioned

The petitioners argued that they suffered constitutional losses due to the enactment of these articles, which stated that an advocate must fulfill a requirement, namely not to have the status of a civil servant or government official and be prohibited from holding other positions that demand such service, which may harm the advocate profession or reduce freedom and independence in conducting their professional duties.

“Actually, this is a concern from functional civil servant lecturers who want to become advocates but are hindered because of the requirements in Law Number 18 of 2003,” the Petitioners’ legal counsel, Mario Ari Leonardus Barus, said in the preliminary hearing of Case Number 150/PUU-XXII/2024 on Monday, October 29, 2024, at the Courtroom.

The prohibition of functional civil servant lecturers to become advocates as referred to in these articles limits the opportunity for functional civil servant lecturers to improve their quality. In fact, lecturers are the spearhead of legal development in Indonesia, because it is through them that the law is disseminated. Thus, the self-development of a lecturer is directly proportional to the quality of knowledge that he can teach to their students.

The Petitioners consist of two FH UI lecturers Djarot Dimas Achmad Andaru (Petitioner I) and Ahmad Madison (Petitioner II) and FH UI student Salsabilla Usman Patamani (Petitioner III). As a result of these articles, Petitioner I as a prospective functional civil servant lecturer and Petitioner II as a functional civil servant lecturer cannot work as an advocate. Even though the Petitioner has participated in special education for the advocate profession and is ready to be appointed as an advocate. The Petitioners' constitutional right to develop their competence and knowledge in the field of law was actually impaired because they could not become functional civil servant lecturers as well as advocates due to the articles a quo.

Meanwhile, Petitioner III as a student will receive legal education from a functional civil servant lecturer who cannot be an advocate. In fact, according to her, functional civil servant lecturers who can simultaneously become advocates will provide more quality legal education than functional civil servant lecturers who do not become advocates. Thus, Petitioner III said that he lost the opportunity which resulted in his constitutional rights being actually harmed because the state university where he was studying would provide functional civil servant lecturers who did not have actual experience in the field of law they taught because they could not become advocates due to the articles a quo.

The Petitioners said that an advocate who can practice in court is indispensable for a law lecturer. This is because courtroom advocacy provides direct experience in interacting with the law in the real world; the experience of direct interaction is different from only conducting legal research because, in the context of research, lecturers are not a direct party (frontline) in handling legal cases and the application of law in society.

Author: Mimi Kartika.

Editor: N. Rosi

PR: Fauzan F.

Translator: 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.

---