Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra reading out the decision on the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Monday (19/1/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - Petitioner Muhamad Firdaus Oiwobo has met the qualifications as a Petitioner in the petition for judicial review, namely being an Indonesian citizen who is a lawyer. However, with regard to the alleged constitutional rights violation, the Court found no causal relationship between the description and the evidence of the alleged violation, which he argued was caused by the enactment of the law being challenged. Therefore, the Petitioner lacks legal standing to file the petition.

This is the legal consideration of the Court read by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra on the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates (Advocate Law) on Monday, January 19, 2026. The hearing for the pronouncement of Decision No. 217/PUU-XXIII/2025, filed by Muhamad Firdaus Oiwobo, was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo from the Plenary Courtroom.

"The description of two concrete facts experienced by the Petitioner as a result of the events in the North Jakarta District Court on February 6, 2025, is not related to the norms of Article 7 paragraph (3) and Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law 18/2003. Therefore, regardless of whether the unconstitutionality of the provisions in question is proven or not, there is no doubt in the Court's mind that the Petitioner does not have legal standing to file the petition a quo," said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi, reading out the Court's legal considerations.

Therefore, in the verdict read by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, the Court declared Muhamad Firdaus Oiwobo's petition unacceptable.

Also read:

Firdaus Oiwobo Challenges Advocate Suspension Mechanism

Firdaus Oiwobo Strengthens Arguments of Advocate Law Review

Muhamad Firdaus Oiwobo 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 first hearing, 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.

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.

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.

---