Phrase "Unbecoming" in Advocates Act Challenged at Constitutional Court for Being Multi-Interpretable
JAKARTA - The phrase “tidak patuh” in relation to conduct as regulated in the Advocates Act has been challenged at the Constitutional Court (MK) due to its multi-interpretable nature.
“Article 6 letter b of the Advocates Act states that advocates may face sanctions if they commit or engage in unbecoming conduct towards opponents or professional peers. It does not provide boundaries, definitions, or clear parameters for the phrase ‘unbecoming’,” said the principal petitioner, Yayang Nanda Budiman, during the hearing at the MK Building in Jakarta on Thursday (7/5/2026).
The challengers question the lack of clarity in ethical parameters in Article 6 letter b, which they argue threatens the independence of advocates in carrying out their professional duties.
The petitioners view the phrase “unbecoming” as potentially opening the door to criminalisation by advocate organisations or honour councils through diverse and one-sided interpretations. The petitioners believe this norm conflicts with Articles 14 and 15 of the Advocates Act, which guarantee advocates’ freedom to express opinions and provide legal defence.
“Article 6 letter b of the Advocates Act also has the potential to hinder advocates’ freedom to express opinions and provide legal defence for their clients, which is explicitly guaranteed in Articles 14 and 15 of the Advocates Act,” he stated.
The petitioners request the MK to reinterpret the phrase so that it does not become a floating concept.
“Unbecoming conduct must be normatively reconstructed as a deviation from norms of morality, propriety, and public order,” he emphasised.
In their petitum, the petitioners request the Constitutional Court to grant the petition in full.
The petitioners also request that Article 6 letter b of Law No. 18 of 2003 be conditionally unconstitutional insofar as it is not interpreted that “unbecoming” conduct must be objective, measurable, and meet the qualifications of violations as strictly regulated in the code of ethics for advocates.
The panel of judges closed the hearing with the agenda of preliminary examination and provided the petitioners with an opportunity to amend the petition.
The hearing is scheduled to resume on 20 May 2026.