Syahril Fauzan, petitioner in the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, presenting the main points of his petition during the preliminary hearing. Thursday (6/11/2026). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Syahril Fauzan, a law student at the Faculty of Law of the University of Muhammadiyah Malang (UMM), has filed a petition for judicial review of paragraph (1)(d) of Article 3 of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates with the Constitutional Court. The provision stipulates a minimum age of 25 for appointment as an advocate. According to the Petitioner, the requirement does not conform to the constitutional standards governing restrictions on human rights as set out in Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

“With regard to the rationale and considerations underlying restrictions on rights, the Petitioner argues that the minimum age requirement for advocates also fails to satisfy the elements of morality, religious values, security, and public order as mandated by Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution,” Syahril stated during the preliminary hearing for Case No. 196/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Thursday, June 11, 2026, at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta.

Article 3 paragraph (1)(d) of the Advocates Law reads in full: “To be appointed as an Advocate, one must fulfill the following requirements: ... d. be at least 25 (twenty-five) years of age; ...”. Syahril explained that he aspires to become an advocate and believes the age threshold would prevent him from being appointed and sworn in immediately after completing his studies.

The Petitioner argued that, when examined under the rational connection test, the age requirement of 25 bears no direct relationship to the protection of the rights of others or the maintenance of public order. He maintained that there is no academic, empirical, or sociological evidence demonstrating that a 23-year-old is inherently more dangerous, less professional, or less capable of practicing law than a person aged 25 or older.

He further contended that developments over the past two decades indicate that many instances of professional misconduct have in fact involved senior advocates. As examples, he referred to a 73-year-old advocate convicted of bribing a court chief and other parties through subordinates, as well as a 54-year-old advocate who climbed onto a courtroom table and caused a disturbance, tarnishing the dignity of the legal profession as an officium nobile.

The Petitioner also cited research by Leah H. Sommerville of Harvard University, which concludes that emotional maturity and adulthood cannot be equated solely with chronological age. He argued that if the objective of the age restriction is to ensure the quality of legal services provided to the public, sociological realities suggest otherwise, as many senior advocates have demonstrated conduct that falls short of professional standards.

In his petitum, Syahril requested that the Court declare Article 3 paragraph (1)(d) of the Advocates Law contrary to the 1945 Constitution and lacking binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as requiring advocates to be “at least 23 (twenty-three) years of age.”

The hearing was conducted before a panel chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, accompanied by Constitutional Justices Adies Kadir and Liliek Prisbawono Adi. During the advisory session, Justice Adies suggested that the Petitioner further elaborate on the constitutional impairment he has suffered or may potentially suffer as a result of the provision prescribing the minimum age requirement.

“The petition has not yet sufficiently explained why such an age limit is no longer necessary, why it is irrational, and why it is disproportionate to the objective sought by the lawmakers,” Adies remarked.

Before adjourning the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra informed the Petitioner that he would be granted 14 days to revise the petition. Both the electronic and hard-copy versions of the revised petition must be submitted to the Court no later than Wednesday, June 24, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. WIB. The petition may only be revised once within that period.

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Raisa Ayuditha M.
Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

---