The Petitioners of Case No. 241/PUU-XXIII/2025 at the petition revision hearing for the material judicial review of the Advocate Law, Thursday (1/8/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held another hearing for the petition filed by Gama Mulya and Helmi (Petitioners I and II) for Case No. 241/PUU-XXIII/2025. This petition revision hearing took place on Thursday, January 8, 2026, with Chief Justice Suhartoyo as chair of the panel.

Gama, who attended the hearing remotely, stated that the articles petitioned for review had been reduced. Initially, the Petitioners challenged seven laws, but after revision, they only focus on Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates. They had also added several articles for benchmark.

“The articles of the 1945 Constitution used for benchmark include Article 27 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 28C, Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), and Article 28 H paragraph (3). They are focused on the review of Article 3 paragraph (1) letter h of the Advocate Law. We also added Petitioner III, who has also been harmed due to the enforcement of this norm,” Gama explained.

Also read: Former Convicts Challenge Phrase “Never Been Convicted” in Seven Laws

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, December 15, 2025, the Petitioners conveyed their challenge of the material constitutionality of seven laws.

Petitioner I is a former convict who has completed his sentence. However, in practice he continues to potentially face dead ends in accessing professions, employment, and education as a result of the application of the phrases contained in the provisions a quo. Petitioner II is a postgraduate law student and a citizen who intends to apply for legal professions, public office, and state-administered education programs. Therefore, he has a direct interest in ensuring that requirements limiting his access to such opportunities are in accordance with the 1945 Constitution and do not create discrimination against himself or other citizens.

At the hearing, Petitioner I explained that the phrase “never been convicted” and similar phrases in the challenged provisions create a permanent form of differentiation against former convicts. They are assessed solely based on their past legal status, without consideration of the type of criminal offense, length of sentence, rehabilitation process, or actual conduct after serving the sentence. According to the Petitioners, such differentiation constitutes discrimination prohibited by Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

In addition, the Petitioners argued that the phrases in the challenged provisions effectively turn imprisonment into an ongoing form of social punishment with no time limit, thereby obstructing access to education and employment. Such a condition is deemed contrary to the principle of just and civilized humanity and undermines the objective of the correctional system to reintegrate former convicts as useful members of society.

Furthermore, the Petitioners maintained that the phrases in the challenged provisions close off access to education and scholarships for former convicts. This is inherently contrary to the right to education as stipulated in Article 31 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and to the principle of inclusivity in education. Even the phrase “never been involved in a criminal offense,” used as a general requirement for scholarships and state education programs, turns education into a morally conditional right beyond judicial decisions. In fact, the 1945 Constitution does not allow for the permanent revocation of the right to education for former convicts.

With those arguments, the Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 3 paragraph (1) letter h of the Advocate Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Explore case No. 241/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : N. Rosi
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.

---