Lawyers' challenges in the year 2000

Lawyers' challenges in the year 2000

By T. Mulya Lubis

JAKARTA (JP): Indonesia's economy will grow by 7 percent in
the coming years, according to the World Bank. While per capita
income will approach US$1,000, only one step away from the
present figure of $920. This does not reflect equity in income
distribution.

The social gap is still an issue. The same goes with monopoly,
oligopoly and conglomeration.

But this does not hinder the flow of foreign capital and
technology into the country, thanks to the ratification of
General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs.

All professions, including the Indonesian Bar Association
(Ikadin), should be prepared to face the change with a critical
mind. Rule of law, human rights and good governance, which have
guided the works of Ikadin should be enforced to steel the
association for future challenges.

Ikadin should always be the voice of the underdog. However, if
the association is striving to become a truly professional bar
association, it needs to broaden its inner self before it can be
recognized as a professional organization of professionals, an
organization participating in the nation's development, and
political growth of the people, its laws, economy and culture.

What has to be done by Ikadin then?

The keyword here is professionalism. It is high time Ikadin
clear itself from the domain of litigation since we are facing
increasingly complex legal problems. For Ikadin not to branch out
would stunt the profession, which would then be lost in the
annals of history. It is for this reason that change is
recommended for the association, it should change its system of
organization and ways of working.

These activities should be led by departments related with
sections of the law important in the life of the nation and the
country.

Ikadin should at least participate in the development of the
profession, like the International Bar Association which runs
various departments as follows:
1. Legal aid department
2. Human rights department
3. Department of environmental law
4. Law of capital funds department
5. Department of intellectual properties
6. Investment laws department
7. Department of arbitrary laws
8. Islamic laws department
9. Department of land laws
10. Labor laws department

Ikadin's progress toward professionalism should start with the
establishment of such departments. These departments would then
need to conduct national seminars either independently, or in
cooperation with other professional organizations every year.

Proceedings of such seminars should be published and
documented.

Activities of the departments should relieve the duties of
Ikadin's leaders, who could then concentrate on macro issues of
political law and international relations. At the same time
Ikadin would be expected to turn into a truly professional bar
association embracing all law professions, including litigation
lawyers and legal consultants.

The first ten years of Ikadin have gone by as a consolidation
period. Those were the years when the profession was at stake
from intense pressure from outside, including from the
government. Ikadin, in its fierce struggle for the profession's
integrity and independency, put pride in many lawyers hearts.
History has proven that those who are less independent have been
dislocated. This, however, does not mean that a culture of
independence has been set up.

Independency for the profession should be pursued, until it
reaches a dignified stage enjoyed in countries like Malaysia, the
Philippines, Pakistan and India. It is a responsibility all of us
bear, especially Indonesia's young lawyers. This is not a time to
be complacent.

It is clear that the future of the profession is in the hands
of the young generation. Regeneration, therefore, is but a
logical consequence of Ikadin's existence. This is our second
keyword. Times have changed and so have the rules of the game.

Any profession, including that of lawyers, should be able to
read the signs of the times, they should be of an open and
critical mind.

It is no longer a secret that the profession is in a weak
position in the prevailing legal system of Indonesia; and the
most vulnerable of all is the judiciary sector.

The law has lost its authority and supremacy. The law has been
torn apart by various political, economic and private interests.

The old adage in law that it does not favor a person or
persons, that it should always be on the side of justice, and
that it should defend the poor and destitute, no longer holds any
truth.

The law discriminates against subjects and has often turned
justice upside down. Justice can be bought and it has become an
unaffordable commodity. It is a tragedy and all of us are to be
blamed. Ikadin cannot claim innocence.

How could this all have happened? Why is there a "court
mafia"? Politicians would say that an erosion of authority has
occurred, and it is because the government's political will has
lost considerable strength to uphold the rules of law.

The government is more inclined to pay attention to economic
growth. However, a simple explanation is that the ethics of the
profession have become merely a matter of courtesy. In other
words, ethics of the profession have been trampled upon. A
demoralization process combined with that of commercialism has
happened. Being a lawyer is no longer a noble profession.

Ikadin has an ethical code which has proven sufficient,
although it needs to be perfected. Were this code honored, the
country would experience much less law discrepancies. "Mafia
court" cases would be curbed and there would be less derisive
remarks about our legal system.

We should realize that derisions about the law came about
because the profession generated a culture of corruption. The
profession has not aimed for justice. The end has justified the
means.

It is time to put our house in order if the profession is to
be respected. Without ethics and regeneration the organization
will stall. A home built on a poor foundation will collapse.

Many have talked about the need for the unification of
lawyers' organizations in view of the year 2000, when the global
market will materialize in line with the nation's commitment to
the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs, the General Agreement
on Trade in Services and the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation.

But a unification engineered by outside parties is bound to
meet with failure. Any organization constructed in a top-heavy
way will not be strong. It will carry too much stress at the top.
It would also be in contradiction with the right to assemble as
guaranteed with the 1945 Constitution. Let pluralism flourish in
the organization and let it generate sound competition.

This does not mean, however, that unification is not
important. But it should come from the members themselves.
When the time comes that foreign attorneys make an inroad into
the country, or the time when technology makes it possible for
lawyers to conduct their professional services electronically,
the need for unification will be imperative.

Finally, Ikadin is a professional organization, not a mass
organization. Ikadin is not under the aegis of the political
parties. Hence, Ikadin should be able to, and should, retain the
right to lead its members professionally. Meaning it is time that
the government stop intervening in the profession.

The writer is a noted human rights activist and a Jakarta-
based corporate lawyer.