Advocate Andri Darmawan delivering a petition on the material judicial review of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocate, at the Panel Courtroom, Tuesday (4/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI)—Advocate Andri Darmawan submitted a petition to the Constitutional Court on the material judicial review of Article 28 paragraph (3) of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocate against Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28E paragraph (3), and Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In the petition of Case No. 183/PUU-XXII/2024, he questioned the absence of prohibition in the provision of organization leadership, which cannot be concurrently held by a state official in the article being tested.

“A leader of an advocate organization who also serves as a state official causes the advocate organization to lose its freedom and independence due to intervention by the government power in the advocate organization, and there tends to be individual or group domination within the advocate organization that may lead to abuse of power which is often understood,” Andri said during the preliminary hearing led by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra along with Justice Ridwan Mansyur and Justice Arsul Sani on Tuesday, March 4, 2025, at the Courtroom, Jakarta.

Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Advocate Law reads, “The leadership of an advocate organization holds a term of office for 5 (five) years and can only be re-elected 1 (one) time in the same position, either consecutively or non-consecutively, and cannot be concurrent with the leadership of a political party, both at the central and regional levels.” The article has been interpreted through the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XX/2022, pronounced on October 31, 2022.

He stated that Prof. Otto Hasibuan, the Peradi Advocate Organization's leader, was appointed Deputy Coordinating Minister of Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Corrections on October 21, 2024. However, until now, Otto still holds his position as the Chairman of Peradi.

Moreover, Otto Hasibuan, as the Chairman of Peradi, delivered his recommendation during the National Working Meeting of Peradi 2024 in Bali, December 5-6, 2024, which, among other things, urged the Supreme Court to revoke the Supreme Court’s circulating letter No. 73 of 2015 on Advocate Oath-taking. Otto suggested that all advocates who have taken their oaths to join the  Peradi organization and requested the Supreme Court to take all advocate candidates' oaths proposed by Peradi.

According to Andri, who is affiliated with the Indonesia Advocate Congress (Kongres Advocate Indonesia, KAI), Otto’s recommendation in his capacity as the Chairman of Peradi cannot be separated from his position as the Deputy Coordinating Minister. He stated that the recommendation could be interpreted as a recommendation from the Coordinating Ministry of Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Correction.

The recommendation is also against the factual condition related to the number of advocate organizations that serve their advocate organization’s duties and functions. It also does not comply with Constitutional Court Decision No. 112/PUU-VII/2014, which declared Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law not in accordance with the 1945 Constitution as long as it is not interpreted as “The Court of Appeal is obliged by law to take oaths for advocates before exercising their profession without associating them with membership of existing organizations, namely PERADI and KAI.”

In addition, Otto Hasibuan’s action did not comply with Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XX/2022 because he led Peradi for three periods even though the Court had set the limit for the advocate organization leadership for two periods. According to Andri, leaders of advocate organization who also serves as state officials cause a conflict of interest because they cannot separate their individual or organizational interest and their duties as state officials.

“And [they] tend to abuse their power by ignoring the Court’s decisions for their individual or organization’s interest, and in the future, it can be certain that Prof Dr Otto Hasibuan SH MK in his capacity as Deputy Coordinating Minister of Law, Human Rights, Immigration, and Correction,” Andri said.

In his petitums, the Petitioner requested the Court to grant the petition in its entirety, declaring Article 28 paragraph (3) of Advocate Law as has been interpreted in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XX/2022 contradicts the 1945 Constitution and conditionally does not have legally binding power as long as it is not interpreted as “The leadership of an advocate organization holds a term of office for 5 (five) years and can only be re-elected 1 (one) time in the same position, either consecutively or non-consecutively, and cannot simultaneously serve as state officials or leaders of political parties, both at the central and regional levels.”

Inadequate Contradiction

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra advised the Petitioner to elaborate in detail and more clearly regarding his legal standing. According to the Court, Andri Darmawan must explain in his petition whether he is representing himself or the KAI organization and connect them with his constitutional loss due to the enactment of Article 28 paragraph (3) of the Advocate Law.

“Regarding the SEMA, it is about the inauguration, oath-taking; you have taken the oath. What is the loss you experience, it should be explain in this petition,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi stated.

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi explained that the Petitioner must elaborate on the threats of constitutional loss for advocates posed by advocate organization leaders who hold government positions. In addition, the petition does not explain the contradiction between the article being tested and the touchstone of the article in the 1945 Constitution.

“The contradiction is not clear, Why, for example, if one does not resign, he contradicts Article 28D, it has not been explained because we consider the reasoning, must he resigns, is it not enough to be inactive during the tenure or suspend practice in advocate office,” Saldi stated.

Before closing the hearing, the Deputy Chief Justice said the Petitioner has 14 days to revise the petition. The revision must be submitted to the Court on Monday, March 17, 2025, at the latest.

Read the full petition in Indonesian: Perkara Nomor 183/PUU-XXII/2024

Author: Mimi Kartika.

Editor: N. Rosi.

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.

---