DUNIA ADVOKAT TAK BOLEH DIKONTROL SECARA ABSOLUT

Dunia Advokat Tak Boleh Dikontrol Secara Absolut

Memberikan kebebasan para advokat memilih organisasi. Yang terpenting, organisasi advokat memikirkan cara meningkatkan kualitas dan integritas dengan standar kompetensi advokat, tidak berkutat pada polemik sistem single bar atau multi bar.

JAKARTA – Perkembangan dunia advokat beberapa tahun terakhir menunjukan organisasi advokat menjadi multi bar. Karena itu, Pasal 28 ayat (1) UU No.18 Tahun 2003 tentang Advokat yang mengamanatkan wadah tunggal nampaknya tak relevan dengan kondisi kekinian. Apalagi faktanya perpecahan di tubuh organisasi advokat tak bisa dihindari. Masing-masing organisasi memiliki pandangan berbeda, meski tujuannya sama demi peningkatan kualitas advokat sebagai anggotanya.

“Single bar itu buang-buang energi,” ujar Presiden Kongres Advokat Indonesia (KAI) Tjoetjoe Sandjaja Hernanto (TSH) kepada Hukumonline, Senin (12/4/2021). (Baca Juga: Mahfud MD Sampaikan 3 Isu Strategis Organisasi Advokat)

Terlepas single bar atau multi bar, TSH menilai semua organisasi advokat harus bersinergi menyusun format terbaik masa depan bagi perkembangan dan peningkatan kualitas advokat. Sekalipun nantinya single bar, itupun adanya Dewan Kehormatan Advokat yang menjadi regulator menyusun dan penegakan aturan kode etik serta merumuskan standar pendidikan advokat. Teknis pelaksanaan pendidikan advokat tetap diberikan ke masing-masing organisasi advokat bekerja sama dengan perguruan tinggi.

“Di bawah Dewan Kehormatan Advokat atau Komite Advokat tetap terdapat banyak organisasi advokat. Organisasi advokat tetap multi bar, hanya saja pembuat regulator bersifat single bar,” kata Tjoetjoe Sandjaja Hernanto.

TSH menilai advokat diberikan kebebasan dalam memilih organisasi advokat yang dikehendaki, tidak “dipaksa” masuk satu organisasi advokat tertentu. “Sudahlah jangan paksa advokat itu ‘dikurung’ di satu wadah. Biarkan mereka memilih organisasi. Tinggal kita meningkatkan kualitas, caranya peningkatan kompetensi,” lanjutnya.

TSH mengakui organisasi advokat yang dipimpinnya memperjuangkan sistem multi bar. Sebab, karakteristik advokat tak bisa dikontrol atau digenggam oleh satu kekuasaan. Advokat merupakan profesi mandiri dan bebas menjalankan tugasnya, demikian pula organisasi advokat.  Dia menduga adanya pihak yang berupaya menguasai advokat dalam satu kekuasaan.

“Dunia advokat tidak boleh dikontrol secara absolute. Kita independen sesuai amanat UU advokat. Advokat itu independen,” tegasnya.

Menurut TSH, amanat wadah tunggal dari Pasal 28 UU 18/2003 secara tak langsung telah direvisi melalui putusan MK No.112/PUU-XII/2014 dan Putusan No.36/PUU-XIII/2015. Begitupula dengan terbitnya Surat Keputusan (SK) Ketua Mahkamah Agung (KMA) No.73/KMA/HK.01/IX/2015 tentang Penyumpahan Advokat.

Pria yang sudah malang melintang puluhan tahun sebagai advokat itu menilai organisasi advokat sebagai mandat UU 18/2003 adalah bebas dan mandiri dengan tujuan meningkatkan kualitas profesi advokat. Baginya organisasi advokat yang ada semestinya duduk bersama bermusyawarah merumuskan ke depan kewenangan advokat dalam menjalankan tugasnya sebagai penegak hukum.

TSH memang orang di balik revisi UU 18/2003 pada beberapa tahun lalu. Meski kandas di penghujung di DPR periode 2009-2014, tak menyurutkannya untuk melakukan perbaikan aturan profesi advokat. Dia pun enggan mendorong soal singlebar atau multibar karena fakta di lapangan, organisasi advokat telah multi bar.

Ketimbang membahas soal single bar atau multi bar dalam perubahan UU 18/2003, justru yang prioritas dikedepankan soal kewenangan profesi advokat. Begitu pula pengaturan kewenangan advokat dalam Rancangan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (R-KUHAP). “Masak kita mengundang saksi untuk hadir di persidangan saja tak ada upaya paksanya. Semua penegak hukum punya kewenangan itu, kecuali advokat,” katanya.

Ketua Umum Peradi Rumah Bersama Advokat (Peradi RBA), Luhut MP Pangaribuan, mengingatkan MK menyindir organisasi advokat lewat beberapa putusannya terkait uji materi UU Advokat. Intinya, advokat kerap menyebut profesional dan independen. Selain itu, advokat kerap menyelesaikan perkara yang dihadapi orang lain. Untuk itu, MK mengembalikan persoalan organisasi advokat ini kepada advokat itu sendiri.

Menurut Luhut, sudah tersedia berbagai pilihan bagi advokat untuk menuntaskan persoalan kisruh organisasi advokat. Misalnya, ada Kode Etik Advokat yang digunakan bersama, dan perlu ada satu Dewan Kehormatan Profesi Advokat yang dibentuk bersama. Ada juga pilihan untuk merevisi UU Advokat.

Luhut berpendapat organisasi advokat bisa berbentuk single bar, tapi bukan berarti kewenangannya hanya pada satu organisasi advokat. Single bar ini dalam hal menetapkan standar profesi, misalnya kode etik. Selain itu, diperlukan satu Dewan Kehormatan Profesi Advokat tingkat pusat dan untuk menyelesaikan masalah organisasi advokat tidak melulu hanya Peradi, tapi juga (melibatkan, red) organisasi advokat selain Peradi.

“Dengan adanya standar itu, maka tidak masalah jika ada banyak organisasi advokat,” ujar Luhut MP Pangaribuan dalam sebuah diskusi daring bertajuk “Talk Show: Quo Vadis Advokat Indonesia”, Jumat (9/4/2021) kemarin.

Standar kompetensi

TSH melanjutkan, kualitas advokat saat ini jauh lebih unggul dibanding zaman dahulu. Dia menilai para senior advokat harus optimis dengan kemampuan advokat di era kekinian. Terlebih era teknologi memacu para advokat muda terus berinovasi dalam rangka pemberian jasa advokat yang mudah dijangkau pencari keadilan dengan memaksimalkan kemajuan teknologi. “Jangan bicara kualitas advokat, bila tidak punya standar kompetensi profesi advokat,” lanjutnya.

TSH mengklaim organisasi advokat yang dipimpinnya telah memiliki standar kompetensi advokat. Seperti antara lain mengantongi Surat Keputusan Dirjen Pembinaan Pelatihan dan Produktivitas Kementerian Ketenagakerjaan (Binalattas) No.58/LATTAS/III/2016 tentang Registrasi Standar Khusus Advokat. Baginya, mengukur penentuan kualitas advokat melalui standar kompetensi advokat.

Selain itu, KAI fokus membangun database advokat secara digital serta mamaksa anggotanya memasuki era modern dengan menyongsong new normal. Baginya, organisasi advokat mengedepankan kepentingan para anggotanya termasuk memudahkan akses pemberian bantuan hukum bagi pencari keadilan. “Kita sedang mengembangkan perangkat digital untuk memberi akses pelayanan hukum probono bagi masyarakat yang tidak mampu,” katanya.

Sumber :  Rofiq Hidayat (Hukum Online)

UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION :

The Advocate World Must Not Be Controlled Absolutely

Give advocates the freedom to choose an organization. Most importantly, advocate organizations think about ways to improve quality and integrity with the competency standards of advocates, not dwelling on single-bar or multi-bar system polemics.

The development of the world of advocates in recent years has shown that advocate organizations have become multi-bar. Therefore, Article 28 paragraph (1) of Law No.18 of 2003 concerning Advocates which mandates a single forum seems irrelevant to current conditions. Moreover, the fact that divisions within the advocate organization cannot be avoided. Each organization has different views, even though the goal is the same to improve the quality of advocates as members.

“The single bar is a waste of energy,” said the President of the Indonesian Advocates Congress (KAI) Tjoetjoe Sandjaja Hernanto (TSH) to Hukumonline, Monday (12/4/2021). (Also Read: Mahfud MD Convey 3 Strategic Issues for Advocate Organizations)

Regardless of single bar or multi bar, TSH assesses that all advocate organizations must work together to develop the best future format for the development and improvement of the quality of advocates. Even though there will be a single bar, there will be an Advocate Honorary Board which will become the regulator to compile and enforce the code of ethics and formulate advocate education standards. The technical implementation of advocate education is still given to each advocate organization in collaboration with universities.

“Under the Advocate Honor Council or Advocate Committee, there are still many advocate organizations. Advocate organizations are still multi-bar, it’s just that the regulator is a single bar, ”said Tjoetjoe Sandjaja Hernanto.

TSH assesses that advocates are given the freedom to choose the desired advocate organization, not being “forced” into one particular advocate organization. “Please don’t force that lawyer to be ‘locked up’ in one container. Let them choose the organization. We just need to improve the quality, how to increase competence, “he continued.

TSH acknowledges that the advocate organization he leads fights for a multi-bar system. This is because the characteristics of an advocate cannot be controlled or grasped by one power. Advocates are an independent profession and are free to carry out their duties, as are advocate organizations. He suspects that there are parties who are trying to control advocates in one power.

“The world of advocates cannot be controlled absolutely. We are independent according to the mandate of the advocate law. Advocates are independent, ”he said.

According to TSH, the mandate of the single container of Article 28 of Law 18/2003 has indirectly been revised through the Constitutional Court decision No.112 / PUU-XII / 2014 and Decision No.36 / PUU-XIII / 2015. Likewise with the issuance of the Decree (SK) of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (KMA) No.73 / KMA / HK.01 / IX / 2015 concerning Swearing of Advocates.

The man who has spent decades as an advocate thinks that advocate organizations as the mandate of Law 18/2003 are free and independent with the aim of improving the quality of the advocate profession. For him, the existing advocate organizations should sit together in deliberation to formulate an advocate’s authority in carrying out their duties as law enforcers.

TSH was indeed the person behind the revision of Law 18/2003 several years ago. Even though he ran aground at the end in the DPR for the 2009-2014 period, it did not stop him from making improvements to the rules of the advocate profession. He is also reluctant to push single or multibar questions due to the fact that on the ground, advocate organizations have multi-barriers.

Rather than discussing the single bar or multi bar issue in the amendment of Law 18/2003, the priority is to put forward the issue of the authority of the advocate profession. Likewise, the regulation of the authority of an advocate in the Draft Criminal Procedure Code (R-KUHAP). “How could we invite witnesses to attend the trial without coercion. All law enforcers have the authority, except for lawyers, ”he said.

Chairman of Peradi Rumah with Advocates (Peradi RBA), Luhut MP Pangaribuan, reminded the Constitutional Court to insinuate advocate organizations through several decisions related to judicial review of the Advocate Law. In essence, advocates often call it professional and independent. In addition, advocates often solve cases faced by other people. For this reason, the Constitutional Court returned the issue of this advocate organization to the advocates themselves.

According to Luhut, there are various options available for advocates to resolve the chaotic issue of advocate organizations. For example, there is an Advocate Code of Ethics which is used together, and there needs to be a Advocate Professional Honor Council that is jointly formed. There is also an option to revise the Advocate Law.

Luhut is of the opinion that an advocate organization can be in the form of a single bar, but that does not mean that it has only one advocate organization. This single bar is in terms of setting professional standards, for example the code of ethics. In addition, a central level Advocate Professional Honor Council is needed and to solve the problem of advocate organizations not only Peradi, but also (involving, red) advocate organizations other than Peradi.

“With this standard, it doesn’t matter if there are many advocate organizations,” said Luhut MP Pangaribuan in an online discussion entitled “Talk Show: Quo Vadis Indonesian Advocates”, Friday (9/4/2021) yesterday.

Competency standards

TSH continued, the quality of advocates today is far superior to that of the past. He assessed that senior advocates must be optimistic about the abilities of lawyers in the current era. Moreover, the technology era has spurred young advocates to continue to innovate in order to provide advocate services that are easily accessible to justice seekers by maximizing technological progress. “Don’t talk about the quality of an advocate, if you don’t have an advocate’s professional competency standard,” he continued.

TSH claims that the advocate organization he leads has a standard of advocate competence. For example, pocketing the Decree of the Director General of Training and Productivity of the Ministry of Manpower (Binalattas) No.58 / LATTAS / III / 2016 concerning the Registration of Advocate Special Standards. For him, it measures the determination of the quality of an advocate through advocate competency standards.

In addition, KAI focuses on building a digital database of advocates and is forcing its members to enter the modern era by welcoming the new normal. For him, advocate organizations prioritize the interests of their members, including facilitating access to legal aid for justice seekers. “We are developing digital tools to provide access to probono legal services for the poor,” he said.

Source: Rofiq Hidayat (Hukum Online)