Ruling Hearing in Case No. 225/PUU-XXIII/2025 concerning the Judicial Review No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Monday (January 19, 2026). Photo: MKRI/Bay.

---

The Court found that the Petitioner, Togar Situmorang, did not provide clear and sufficient legal reasoning to support the alleged conflict between the Advocate Law and the Constitution.

JAKARTA, MKRI – The Constitutional Court declared the petition for judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates (the Advocate Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia inadmissible. Decision in case No. 225/PUU-XXIII/2025 was pronounced at the Ruling Hearing held on Monday (January 19, 2026) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The petition was filed by Togar Situmorang, an advocate.

Deputy Justice Saldi Isra read out the legal considerations of the Petitioner’s application were not drafted clearly and systematically. The Court noted an inconsistency between the description of the object of review and the petitum submitted by the Petitioner.

In the section describing the petition, the Petitioner stated that the object of constitutional review was Article 16 of the Advocate Law. However, in petitum point two, the Petitioner instead requested the Court to declare the elucidation of Article 16 of the Advocate Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and conditionally lacking binding legal force.

Furthermore, the Court found that the explanation regarding the Petitioner’s legal standing predominantly described the concrete case personally experienced by the Petitioner, without adequately setting out a causal relationship between the enactment of the norm under review and the alleged impairment of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights.

The Court also considered that the grounds of the petition were not supported by clear and sufficient legal arguments explaining how the provisions of the Advocate Law allegedly conflicted with the articles of the 1945 Constitution used as the basis for review. The Petitioner merely elaborated on the authority of the Honorary Council of the Advocate Organization in examining violations of the advocate’s code of ethics and linked such authority to Constitutional Court Decision No. 52 of 2018.

“Accordingly, due to the lack of clarity regarding the object of the petition, the Petitioner’s legal standing, and the substance of the petition, the Court thinks that the a quo petition is vague or obscuur,” stated Deputy Justice Saldi Isra.

Related Articles:

Broad Authority of Advocate Organizations Questioned

Petitioner Challenging Advocate Law Revises Object, Petitums

Previously, the Petitioner challenged Article 16 of the Advocate Law, which stipulates that advocates cannot be subject to civil or criminal liability in carrying out their professional duties in good faith for the purpose of defending a client in court proceedings. The Petitioner argued that this provision, along with several other regulations in the Advocate Law, grants excessively broad authority to advocate organizations, including with respect to the issuance of Advocate Identity Cards (KTPA).

According to the Petitioner, such a regulatory framework gives rise to legal uncertainty and has the potential to infringe upon the constitutional rights of advocates. The Petitioner further contended that the KTPA does not have an explicit legal basis in the Advocate Law, yet is utilized as an administrative requirement for court appearances.

During the hearing presided over by Justice Arief Hidayat, the Petitioner’s legal counsel, Axl Mattew Situmorang, stated that the Petitioner had been designated as a defendant and detained while performing his professional duties as an advocate. He asserted that the Petitioner had acted in good faith in defending his client. (*)

Author             : Utami Agawati

Editor              : Lulu Anjarsari

PR                  : Fauzan Febriyan

Translator        : Nies Lindy

The complete text of the decision is available at the following link: Decision in Case No 225/PUU-XXIII/2025

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.

---