Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Happy Rayna Stephany, Robert Sidauruk
Former receivers of PT Telkomsel (Telkomsel) have expressed their disappointment with the decision handed down by the South Jakarta District Court dismissing their lawsuit against Telkomsel’s lawyers on the basis of the lawyer's right of immunity.
“There is a fallacy in the rationale behind the decision,” said Edino Girsang, one of the former receivers of Telkomsel on Wednesday.
The lawsuit itself was filed by Mr. Girsang and other plaintiffs, against Ricardo Simanjuntak and several other individuals, who allegedly did not act in good faith when performing duties as a lawyer. The South Jakarta District Court, however, dismissed the case on the basis that Ricardo Simanjuntak has a right of immunity as a lawyer.
Mr. Girsang criticized the decision by saying that Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2013, the Advocate Law, only applies to acts that are performed in a good faith and during court proceedings as actions that are protected under an advocate’s right to immunity.
Further, Mr. Girsang argued that the act of Mr. Simanjuntak, sending a letter to the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court on the Telkomsel bankruptcy case, but not sending a copy of that letter to the plaintiffs as the receivers, was not an act in good faith.
Mr. Girsang also highlighted the statement from Andri W Kusuma, another defendant and also Telkomsel's lawyer, who said to the press that Telkomsel’s receivers were involved in a judicial mafia scheme, was not performed during a court proceeding and should therefore not be protected under the immunity right.
“Therefore, those acts should not be protected by Article 16 of the Advocate Law, the advocate’s code of ethics, or even Article 8 of the International Bar Association Code of Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence”, said Mr. Edino.
A similar issue on lawyer immunity also recently arose during the ABNR case. Susanti Adi Nugroho, former Justice of the Supreme Court, acting as an expert in the case, contended that there is no clear cut division as to what extent “during court proceedings” can be interpreted when determining an advocate’s right of immunity.
Mrs. Nugroho further explained that the phrase “during trial proceedings” under Article 16 of the Advocate Law should not be interpreted as “court room” per se. Instead, it also covers all necessary acts that need to be taken by lawyers for the purposes of the trial proceedings.
(For more information on the Minister Regulation see ILB No. 2078)
(hot/kc)
Happy Rayna Stephany, Robert Sidauruk
Former receivers of PT Telkomsel (Telkomsel) have expressed their disappointment with the decision handed down by the South Jakarta District Court dismissing their lawsuit against Telkomsel’s lawyers on the basis of the lawyer's right of immunity.
“There is a fallacy in the rationale behind the decision,” said Edino Girsang, one of the former receivers of Telkomsel on Wednesday.
The lawsuit itself was filed by Mr. Girsang and other plaintiffs, against Ricardo Simanjuntak and several other individuals, who allegedly did not act in good faith when performing duties as a lawyer. The South Jakarta District Court, however, dismissed the case on the basis that Ricardo Simanjuntak has a right of immunity as a lawyer.
Mr. Girsang criticized the decision by saying that Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2013, the Advocate Law, only applies to acts that are performed in a good faith and during court proceedings as actions that are protected under an advocate’s right to immunity.
Further, Mr. Girsang argued that the act of Mr. Simanjuntak, sending a letter to the Commercial Court at the Central Jakarta District Court on the Telkomsel bankruptcy case, but not sending a copy of that letter to the plaintiffs as the receivers, was not an act in good faith.
Mr. Girsang also highlighted the statement from Andri W Kusuma, another defendant and also Telkomsel's lawyer, who said to the press that Telkomsel’s receivers were involved in a judicial mafia scheme, was not performed during a court proceeding and should therefore not be protected under the immunity right.
“Therefore, those acts should not be protected by Article 16 of the Advocate Law, the advocate’s code of ethics, or even Article 8 of the International Bar Association Code of Minimum Standards of Judicial Independence”, said Mr. Edino.
A similar issue on lawyer immunity also recently arose during the ABNR case. Susanti Adi Nugroho, former Justice of the Supreme Court, acting as an expert in the case, contended that there is no clear cut division as to what extent “during court proceedings” can be interpreted when determining an advocate’s right of immunity.
Mrs. Nugroho further explained that the phrase “during trial proceedings” under Article 16 of the Advocate Law should not be interpreted as “court room” per se. Instead, it also covers all necessary acts that need to be taken by lawyers for the purposes of the trial proceedings.
(For more information on the Minister Regulation see ILB No. 2078)
(hot/kc)