Jakarta (ANTARA News) - The House of Representatives (DPR) did not attend the Constitutional Court (MK) session on the judicial review of Article 16 Law No.18/2003 regarding advocates immunity rights.
"The House had sent a notification letter that it could not be present at the court session because it had to attend an unavoidable meeting," MK Chairman Anwar Usman said at the MK building here on Wednesday.
The MK convened the court session on the judicial review of the Article 16 of Law No.18/2003 to hear the explanations of the DPR and the government.
Three advocates, who are also legal consultants at the Legal Aid and Consultation Institute (LKBH) of Sahid University, filed the judicial review with the MK.
Petitioners elaborated in their legal suit that the provision a quo had once been reviewed by the MK in 2013, with case registration number 26/PUU-XI/2013.
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners so that the provision a quo was changed with additional phrase outside that read "....advocates could not be prosecuted both in terms of civil and crime cases in carrying out their profession with good will for the interest of defending their clients inside or outside the court session."
The petitioners are of the view that with the additional phrase, the immunity right of advocates has become broader in meaning, because, on one hand, the advocates are protected both inside and outside the court session. On the other hand, the provision a quo also provides a threat to the legal protection for advocates if they do not get good will evaluation from the Honorary Council of the Advocates Organization.
According to the petitioners, if the Honorary Council of the Advocate Organization did not evaluate, examine, and decide the good will phrase in the first place, it will become biased, subjective, and lacking legal certainty and legal protection for advocates being sued. It will therefore hurt the profession and degrade advocate dignity.
Petitioners in their petition asked the MK to rule that the provision a quo is against Article 24D point (1), Article 28G point (1) and Article 28G point (2) of the 1945 Constitution, particularly when it fails to fulfill the good will, not be understood that advocates could not be prosecuted (both in terms of crime and civil case) in carrying out their profession with previous examinations by the Honorary Council of the Advocates Organization.
Source: ANTARA News