Peradi Objects to Revision of the Advocates Act Before DPR Commission III

REPUBLIKA.CO.ID, JAKARTA – Peradi has reminded the DPR’s Commission III to reconsider the plan to revise Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates. “We object to any changes to the Advocates Act because we do not see any urgency in improving this Advocates Act,” said Deputy General Chairman of the Peradi Central Board, Supriyanto Refa, in a press release in Jakarta on Tuesday (21/4/2026).

According to Refa, Peradi believes that the current Advocates Act already accommodates all the interests of advocates and seekers of justice and includes the rights and obligations of advocates. “Therefore, we feel that since Peradi was established in accordance with the law, and that law is still in effect, the single bar must be maintained,” he stated.

Refa also explained that the issuance of Supreme Court Decree No. 73 of 2015, which allows High Courts to administer oaths to prospective advocates nominated by advocate organisations (OA) outside of Peradi, is the root cause of various advocate problems in Indonesia.

According to him, the decree has triggered a decline in the quality of advocates and various other issues due to the mushrooming of OAs that encroach on state authority. Refa noted that the state, through the Advocates Act, grants eight authorities exclusively to Peradi, including organising legal education (PKPA), appointing advocates, and nominating candidates for oath-taking.

“In the end, some of Peradi’s authorities were taken over by other organisations because they were permitted by the Chief Justice,” he said.

Refa emphasised that Peradi, under the leadership of Chairman Prof Otto Hasibuan, also objects to the discourse on establishing the National Advocates Council (DAN) and implementing a multi-bar system. “From the beginning until today, we have been consistent that Peradi is the only advocate organisation that still exists and complies with the Advocates Act,” he stated.

Refa pointed out that the issue of inconsistency or declining quality of advocates is not due to the Advocates Act. He assessed that the problems arose because of state intervention in the advocate organisation, namely the issuance of that decree. “As a result, this advocate profession organisation became fragmented, and new organisations were formed that do not comply with the Advocates Act,” said Refa.