Petitioner and his legal counsel attending the preliminary hearing of Case No. 217/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Wednesday (19/11). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – Muhamad Firdaus Oiwobo filed a material judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates (Advocate Law) to the Constitutional Court (MK). The panel preliminary hearing of Case No. 217/PUU-XXIII/2025 was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo on Wednesday, November 19, 2025. Accordingly, the Petitioner challenged Article 7 paragraph (3) and Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Advocate Law against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Article 7 paragraph (3) of the Advocate Law states, “Before an advocate is subject to the actions referred to in paragraph (1), the person concerned must be afforded the opportunity to defend themselves.”

Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Advocates Law states, “In the event of disciplinary action in the form of temporary suspension as referred to in Article 7 letter c or permanent dismissal as referred to in letter d, the Advocates Organization as referred to in paragraph (1) shall convey the disciplinary decision to the Supreme Court.”

During the proceedings, legal counsel Sukma Murti Eka Cipta described the concrete case of the Petitioner, namely, the termination of membership in the Indonesian Advocates Congress (KAI) pursuant to DPP KAI Decree No. 007/DPP-KAI/SK/1/2025 dated February 8, 2025. The Petitioner was deemed to have violated the professional code of ethics following an unexpected incident in the courtroom of the North Jakarta District Court on February 6, 2025. At that time, the Petitioner was serving as Additional Counsel in a case involving Razman Arif Nasution. The Petitioner climbed onto the counsel’s table in the courtroom while the hearing had been suspended and the presiding judges had left the courtroom. This act was done unconsciously and spontaneously by the Petitioner, as a commotion was taking place in the courtroom and the Petitioner was focused on monitoring his client, who was being surrounded by parties engaged in a heated dispute.

According to the DPP KAI Decree, three sanctions were imposed on the Petitioner. First, the sanction of dismissal with dishonor. Second, the revocation of DPP KAI Decree Number 05969/011/SKADV/KAI/9/2015 regarding the Petitioner’s appointment as a member of KAI. Third, a strict prohibition against using or displaying any organizational attributes, names, logos, or flags in any form, whether for personal interests, organizations led by the Petitioner, or for clients represented by the Petitioner.

The Petitioner acknowledged that the imposition of ethical sanctions is understandable, provided there is clear evidence of an ethical violation and that disciplinary proceedings are conducted transparently, accountably, and in accordance with the Advocates Law. However, up to now, the Petitioner has never been summoned to provide clarification regarding the alleged code of ethics violation, nor has he been called to appear before the Honorary Council of the Advocates Organization for a fair and open ethics hearing, and at no time has he been given the opportunity to mount a defense.

In summary, the Petitioner was unilaterally dismissed from membership in the KAI Advocates Organization without any ethics hearing as mandated by law. Subsequently, the Petitioner also received a Determination Letter from the Chief Judge of the Banten High Court, Number 52/KPT.W29/HM.1.1.1/II/2025, on the Suspension of the Advocate Oath Minutes. As a result, the Petitioner has legally lost the legitimacy to exercise the legal profession before the courts and the public.

In other words, the suspension of the advocate oath minutes has nullified the Petitioner’s right to earn a living and to practice as an advocate, to assist those seeking justice through a lawful profession protected by law, to conduct the right of defense, to receive fair legal certainty and protection, and disregards the principle of due process of law, all of which are integral to the constitutional right to work, to a decent livelihood, and to legal protection as guaranteed by Article 27 paragraph (2) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

As part of his efforts to restore his rights, the Petitioner has pursued various legal remedies, including submitting correspondence to the Supreme Court and participating in a hearing before Commission III of the House of Representatives of Indonesia. Nevertheless, no response or resolution has been forthcoming, resulting in continued neglect of the Petitioner’s legal rights to this day.

“The ambiguity of Article 7 paragraph (3) of the Advocates Law has, in practice, caused actual constitutional harm to the Petitioner. This is because the provision does not clearly require the advocates’ organization to first summon the person concerned before imposing sanctions or other disciplinary measures for alleged professional ethics violations. The said article merely states that an advocate shall be given the opportunity to defend themselves, without providing any limits, procedures, certainty, or guarantee of implementation, thereby eroding the advocate’s constitutional right to substantive justice. The norm is open to interpretation, leaving the advocates’ organization free to interpret both the form and procedure of ‘self-defense’ as it wishes. This creates the potential for discriminatory practices and abuse of authority,” explained Deolipa Yumara, a member of the Petitioner’s legal team.

Based on these arguments, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 7 paragraph (3) of the Advocates Law to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding, except insofar as it is interpreted to mean "an advocates’ organization must provide advocates accused of breaching the code of ethics with a fair, transparent, and proportional opportunity to present a defense before imposing any sanctions or measures of temporary or permanent dismissal."

The Petitioner also asked the Court to declare Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Advocates Law to be unconstitutional and not legally binding unless interpreted as:
a. "In cases involving disciplinary action in the form of suspension as referred to in Article 7 letter c, or permanent dismissal as referred to in letter d, the Advocates Organization as referred to in paragraph (1) must deliver the disciplinary decision to the Supreme Court for further action."
b. Once the Supreme Court receives the disciplinary decision from the Advocates Organization, the Supreme Court is to suspend the relevant advocate’s Oath Minute in accordance with the ethical decision of the Advocates Organization’s Honorary Council.
c. The sole body authorized to examine, adjudicate, and impose sanctions or take action against advocates is the Advocates Organization’s Honorary Council.
d. Any form of suspension of an advocate’s Oath Minute (BAS) not based on a disciplinary decision by the Honorary Council of the Advocates Organization must be void as a matter of law.

Additionally, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare the Decree of the Chief Judge of the Banten High Court Number 52/KPT.W29/HM.1.1.1/II/2025 to be unauthorized and contrary to the 1945 Constitution.

Petitioner’s Legal Standing

In response to this petition, Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh requested the Petitioner to clarify their legal standing. “Furthermore, since the petition seeks a normative interpretation, it is necessary to provide comparative references to similar cases from other countries regarding the right to defend oneself, given that the spirit of a professional organization is to protect its members. Thus, this is a principal right to be exercised, and you must convince the court on this point,” Justice Daniel explained.

Justice M. Guntur Hamzah then inquired about the nature of the suspension imposed on the Petitioner. “The provision relies on Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Advocates Law, but does the suspension here refer to a temporary dismissal? Was there a letter from the advocates’ organization to the Banten High Court, which then issued the suspension? If this can be clarified, please explain it in the petition so it is evident whether or not a necessary procedural phase was skipped,” stated Justice Guntur.

Meanwhile, Chief Justice Suhartoyo observed that the norms being challenged by the Petitioner do not appear relevant to the concrete case presented. “Nevertheless, this argument needs to be substantiated, where exactly is the link to the Petitioner’s constitutional injury?” Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated.

At the end of the hearing, Chief Justice Suhartoyo announced that the Petitioner was granted 14 working days to revise the petition. The amended petition must be submitted no later than Tuesday, December 2, 2025, at 12:00 local time to the Registrar’s Office. The Court will then schedule the next hearing to hear the main points of the revised petition.

Case tracking

Author: Sri Pujianti.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Andhini SF.

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.

 

 

---