Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Produk Pilihan
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
In recent weeks the issue of lawyer’s immunity rights has been one of the most hotly debated issues among legal practitioners particularly with cases such as Sumatra v. ABNR, and also a case involving receiver’s fees.
The debate may now have come to an end with the Constitutional Court (MK) finally handing down its decision on its judicial review of Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003on Advocates (Advocate Law), the ground for the immunity right of lawyers.
The article in question stipulates that “lawyers are not liable neither privately nor criminally, when conducting their professional duties with good faith for the purpose of the defense of their client during court proceedings”.
In its decision, the MK took the view that Article 16 of the Advocate Law must be interpreted as a protection for advocates when performing their duties, not only during court proceeding but also outside the court.
Justice Maria Farida noted that pursuant to Article 1 (1) of the Advocate Law, lawyers perform their professional duties both inside and outside the court room. This is also confirmed by Article 11 of Law No 16 of 2011 on Legal Aid, which states that legal aid providers possess immunity rights when performing their duties both during and outside court proceedings.
“The inconsistency between the Advocate Law and Legal Aid Law has created legal uncertainty for lawyers, hence it contradicts Article 28D (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” said Justice Maria in Jakarta on Wednesday.
Responding to the decision, Happy Sihombing, legal counsel for the Indonesian Advocates Association (PERADI), which is involved in the judicial review as a related party, hopes that the decision can be implemented effectively, especially by other law enforces such as police and public prosecutors. The importance of the legal immunity is founded in the fact that advocates are often intimidated or even arrested when performing their professional duties.
“This [decision] is good news to all lawyers and this is what we were hoping for when drafting the Advocate Law,” said Mr. Sihombing.
The judicial review petition itself was filed by three lawyers, Rangga Lukita Desnata, Oktavianus Sihombing, and Dimas Arya Perdana. They questioned Article 16 of Advocate Law which grants a right of immunity to advocates but based on the wording of that article but only when performing their duties in courtrooms.
According to these lawyers, this limitation is not in line with the fact that the responsibility of lawyers is not limited to courtroom matters. They argued that lawyer’s responsibilities extend to actions outside the court, such as out of court mediation or settlement, advocacy, and also press conferences.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
In recent weeks the issue of lawyer’s immunity rights has been one of the most hotly debated issues among legal practitioners particularly with cases such as Sumatra v. ABNR, and also a case involving receiver’s fees.
The debate may now have come to an end with the Constitutional Court (MK) finally handing down its decision on its judicial review of Article 16 of Law No. 18 of 2003on Advocates (Advocate Law), the ground for the immunity right of lawyers.
The article in question stipulates that “lawyers are not liable neither privately nor criminally, when conducting their professional duties with good faith for the purpose of the defense of their client during court proceedings”.
In its decision, the MK took the view that Article 16 of the Advocate Law must be interpreted as a protection for advocates when performing their duties, not only during court proceeding but also outside the court.
Justice Maria Farida noted that pursuant to Article 1 (1) of the Advocate Law, lawyers perform their professional duties both inside and outside the court room. This is also confirmed by Article 11 of Law No 16 of 2011 on Legal Aid, which states that legal aid providers possess immunity rights when performing their duties both during and outside court proceedings.
“The inconsistency between the Advocate Law and Legal Aid Law has created legal uncertainty for lawyers, hence it contradicts Article 28D (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” said Justice Maria in Jakarta on Wednesday.
Responding to the decision, Happy Sihombing, legal counsel for the Indonesian Advocates Association (PERADI), which is involved in the judicial review as a related party, hopes that the decision can be implemented effectively, especially by other law enforces such as police and public prosecutors. The importance of the legal immunity is founded in the fact that advocates are often intimidated or even arrested when performing their professional duties.
“This [decision] is good news to all lawyers and this is what we were hoping for when drafting the Advocate Law,” said Mr. Sihombing.
The judicial review petition itself was filed by three lawyers, Rangga Lukita Desnata, Oktavianus Sihombing, and Dimas Arya Perdana. They questioned Article 16 of Advocate Law which grants a right of immunity to advocates but based on the wording of that article but only when performing their duties in courtrooms.
According to these lawyers, this limitation is not in line with the fact that the responsibility of lawyers is not limited to courtroom matters. They argued that lawyer’s responsibilities extend to actions outside the court, such as out of court mediation or settlement, advocacy, and also press conferences.
(hot/kc)