Petition Revision Hearing for Case No. 152/PUU-XXIV/2026, Material Judicial Review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Wednesday (5/20/2026). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing on Petition No. 152/PUU-XXIV/2026 on judicial review of the phrase "inappropriate" in Article 6 letter b of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates (Advocate Law) on Wednesday, May 20, 2026. The hearing's agenda was to examine revisions to the petition.

Yayang Nanda Budiman (Petitioner), an advocate, explained during the hearing that he had made several revisions to the petition. Among other things, he added a norm from the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI) to serve as a touch article. If initially only Article 28D paragraph (1) was used as a touch article, now he added Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 NRI Constitution.

"Then in the touch article section, Petitioner added one touch article in addition to Article 28D paragraph (1) plus Article 28G paragraph (1) of the 1945 NRI Constitution," said Yayang.

Petitioner further explained that the legal standing had been revised structurally and that a statement had been added to the causal relationship between the validity of the norm being reviewed and the Petitioner's constitutional loss. Furthermore, Petitioner had revised the petitum in accordance with the advice of the Panel of Constitutional Justices.

Also read:

Advocates Demand Clarification of Criteria for “Improper” Conduct

For additional information, Petition No. 152/PUU-XXIV/2026 was filed by an advocate named Yayang Nanda Budiman. He challenged the phrase "inappropriate" in Article 6 letter b of Advocates Law. Article 6 letter b of Advocates Law reads in full, "Advocates may be subject to action for the following reasons: …, b) acting or behaving inappropriately towards their opponents or colleagues."

In the first hearing at the Court on Thursday, May 7, 2026, Petitioner argued that the norm lacks clear boundaries, thus leading to multiple interpretations. Petitioner stated that as an advocate, his daily duties are never free from argumentative dynamics with fellow advocates on opposing sides. Advocates' struggles for their clients' interests often lead to assertive, harsh, and even high-pitched communication as part of their professional strategy. With the advancement of communication technology, differences of opinion frequently arise on social media, both in written and audio-visual forms.

According to Petitioner, Article 6 letter b of Advocates Law doesn’t provide a clear definition of "inappropriate" conduct, thus potentially giving rise to subjective and multiple interpretations, both by the complainant, the Advocates' Organization, and the Advocates' Honorary Council. Consequently, any form of legal debate between advocates has the potential to be interpreted as "inappropriate." Therefore, Petitioner believes there should be clear, measurable, and objective boundaries for behavior considered "inappropriate."

Therefore, in the petitum, Petitioner asks the Court to declare Article 6 letter b of  Advocate Law as contradictory to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD NRI) and doesn’t have conditional binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted as, "Advocates can be subject to action on the grounds of: ... b) acting or behaving inappropriately which objectively and measurably constitutes a violation of moral norms, decency, or public order, and meets the qualifications of violations as expressly regulated in Advocate Code of Ethics against opponents or colleagues in the profession."

Track case  No. 152/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author      : Ilham Wiryadi Muhammad
Editor       : N. Rosi
PR           : Andhini S.F.
Translator : Donny Yuniarto

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.

---