{
    "success": true,
    "data": {
        "id": 1724192,
        "msgid": "phrase-unbecoming-in-advocates-act-challenged-at-constitutional-court-for-being-multi-interpretable-1778156615",
        "date": "2026-05-07 16:41:50",
        "title": "Phrase \"Unbecoming\" in Advocates Act Challenged at Constitutional Court for Being Multi-Interpretable",
        "author": "Danu Damarjati",
        "source": "KOMPAS",
        "tags": "",
        "topic": "Legal",
        "summary": "A legal challenge has been filed at Indonesia's Constitutional Court against the phrase \"tidak patuh\" (unbecoming conduct) in Article 6(b) of the Advocates Act, arguing that its vagueness allows for subjective interpretations that threaten lawyers' independence and freedom to express opinions and defend clients, as protected under Articles 14 and 15. The petitioner seeks a reinterpretation to define such conduct as objective deviations from norms of decency, propriety, and public order, requesting the provision be deemed conditionally unconstitutional unless interpreted with clear, measurable ethical standards. The preliminary hearing concluded with an opportunity for the petitioner to amend the request, with the next session scheduled for 20 May 2026.",
        "content": "<p>JAKARTA - The phrase \u201ctidak patuh\u201d in relation to conduct as\nregulated in the Advocates Act has been challenged at the Constitutional\nCourt (MK) due to its multi-interpretable nature.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cArticle 6 letter b of the Advocates Act states that advocates may\nface sanctions if they commit or engage in unbecoming conduct towards\nopponents or professional peers. It does not provide boundaries,\ndefinitions, or clear parameters for the phrase \u2018unbecoming\u2019,\u201d said the\nprincipal petitioner, Yayang Nanda Budiman, during the hearing at the MK\nBuilding in Jakarta on Thursday (7\/5\/2026).<\/p>\n<p>The challengers question the lack of clarity in ethical parameters in\nArticle 6 letter b, which they argue threatens the independence of\nadvocates in carrying out their professional duties.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioners view the phrase \u201cunbecoming\u201d as potentially opening\nthe door to criminalisation by advocate organisations or honour councils\nthrough diverse and one-sided interpretations. The petitioners believe\nthis norm conflicts with Articles 14 and 15 of the Advocates Act, which\nguarantee advocates\u2019 freedom to express opinions and provide legal\ndefence.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cArticle 6 letter b of the Advocates Act also has the potential to\nhinder advocates\u2019 freedom to express opinions and provide legal defence\nfor their clients, which is explicitly guaranteed in Articles 14 and 15\nof the Advocates Act,\u201d he stated.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioners request the MK to reinterpret the phrase so that it\ndoes not become a floating concept.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cUnbecoming conduct must be normatively reconstructed as a deviation\nfrom norms of morality, propriety, and public order,\u201d he emphasised.<\/p>\n<p>In their petitum, the petitioners request the Constitutional Court to\ngrant the petition in full.<\/p>\n<p>The petitioners also request that Article 6 letter b of Law No.\u00a018 of\n2003 be conditionally unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted\nthat \u201cunbecoming\u201d conduct must be objective, measurable, and meet the\nqualifications of violations as strictly regulated in the code of ethics\nfor advocates.<\/p>\n<p>The panel of judges closed the hearing with the agenda of preliminary\nexamination and provided the petitioners with an opportunity to amend\nthe petition.<\/p>\n<p>The hearing is scheduled to resume on 20 May 2026.<\/p>",
        "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/phrase-unbecoming-in-advocates-act-challenged-at-constitutional-court-for-being-multi-interpretable-1778156615",
        "image": ""
    },
    "sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
    "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}