The Petitioner’s counsels presenting the revisions to the petition at a hearing for case No. 225/PUU-XXIII/2025 on Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Tuesday (12/9/2025). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing for the material judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates on Tuesday, December 9, 2025. The petition in case No. 225/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Togar Situmorang, an advocate.

The Petitioner was represented by Axl Mattew Situmorang, who presented the revisions to the petition before Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat and members of the panel. “In accordance with your directions for the petition to remain consistent, we have revised and standardized the object of the petition from the subject matter to the petitums. We emphasize that what we are challenging is the elucidation to Article 16 of the Advocate Law, particularly the interpretive uncertainty regarding the phrase ‘good faith,’ and not the article in the main body of the statute,” he explained.

He further clarified that the reference to Article 26 paragraph (4) of the Advocate Law in the revised petition is neither an object of review nor a constitutional benchmark. It is used solely as an argumentative ground in the posita (reason for the petition) to demonstrate systematic inconsistency within the Advocate Law, which disregards the oversight mechanism regulated in Article 26 paragraph (4) in the interpretation of the elucidation to Article 16.

In addition, he continued, revisions were also made by simplifying the Petitioner’s profile and sharpening the legal standing. “We have adjusted the Petitioner’s [profile] by referring to Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025, and regarding legal standing, following your guidance to elaborate specific and actual harm, we have set out the fact that the Petitioner is currently a defendant and is detained in a criminal case as a result of the unrestrained interpretation of ‘good faith,’” the counsel stated.

Also read: Broad Authority of Advocate Organizations Questioned

In his petition, the Petitioner challenges Article 16 of the Advocate Law, which stipulates that “Advocates cannot be prosecuted either civilly or criminally in carrying out their professional duties in good faith for the defense of clients in or out of court.” He argues that several provisions of the Advocate Law, including the article under review, grant overly broad authority to advocate organizations concerning the appointment, membership, dismissal, and litigation legitimacy of advocates, including through the issuance of Advocate Identification Cards (KTPA). According to him, such regulation creates legal uncertainty and could potentially harm the constitutional rights of advocates.

The Petitioner has been named a defendant and was detained while performing professional duties in defending a client. Yet, he believes he had acted in good faith, as evidenced by his achievements in the effort to defend the client. Assessment of good faith, he argues, should be decided by the ethics council of the relevant advocate organization, without reducing criminal or civil liability. In addition, there is urgency to the Petitioner’s current situation, as he is undergoing trial at the Denpasar District Court.

In the petition, the Petitioner also argues that several provisions of the Advocate Law violate Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. He contends that the KTPA lacks any legal basis in the Advocate Law yet is used as an administrative requirement to appear in court, thus violating the legality principle. In addition, advocate organizations are deemed able to unilaterally determine the validity period, extension, and revocation of the KTPA, which may hinder advocates from practicing even though they have been sworn in by the High Court.

Track the Case No. 225/PUU-XXIII/2025 here.

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR               : Fauzan Febriyan
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.

---