Violation Code of Ethics by Assegaf & Wirawan

name : Andika Firnanda Nim : 08410014 Advocate is an honorable profession (officium nobile) are in their profession an advocate should have the freedom that is based on honor and personality advocate who cling to honesty, independence, confidentiality and disclosure, in order to prevent the emergence of attitudes and behaviors are not commendable less honorable.1 Advocates use primarily to provide a system of ethics which is able to create a structure of disciplines working procedures and provide boundary values that can be used as a reference for professionals to resolve the ethical dilemma faced when developing of functioning day-to-day profession. That the code of ethics is like a compass that gives directions or shows for a professional and moral profession while ensuring quality in the community.2 But there is no ivory that is not cracked, hope for the profession of advocate as nobile officium far from perfection. There are many code violations committed by the lawyers, it's ironic. This condition is unfortunate, amid efforts to maintain the dignity of the profession of lawyer advocates as a noble profession and respectable profession. One case was a violation of the code of ethics advocate by two senior lawyers, M Assegaf and Wirawan Adnan. The case began when M Assegaf and Wirawan Adnan as the legal team Pollycarpus on August 11, 2007 sent a letter to the Head of the State Intelligence Agency to clarify the truth of witness statements BIN agent Raden Mohammad Padma Anwar in the murder of Munir. Both are also asking for information about the NIA explains President Director of PT Garuda Indonesia Indra Setiawan who claimed to have received a letter from BIN to assign to the security Polycarpus in Munir's flight to Holland.3 KASUM assess the letter as an attempt to influence Raden Mohammad Padma Anwar because Raden is structurally subordinate to the Head of BIN. "The actions of M Assegaf and Wirawan Adnan grossly intended to disrupt the proceedings," said Asfinawati, Legal Team Coordinator KASU.4 Lawyer Wirawan Adnan M Assegaf and otherwise violated the Code of Ethics Advocate Indonesia by Indonesian Advocates Association Honorary Council of Jakarta. Both are considered to influence the witnesses in the trial of human rights activist Munir murder defendant Garuda pilot Pollycarpus Budihari Priyanto.5 The most principle in this case is the conduct alleged against the advocate Chapter VI; Ways to Handle Case Acting mainly on article 7 of the letter (e), the Code of Indonesian Advocate: "Advocates are not allowed to teach or influence the witnesses presented by the other party in a civil case or by the public prosecutor in a criminal case ". The phrase clearly does not give another explanation except that the lawyer shall give priority to the rule of law, truth and justice. Then interpret it is the advocate should not make efforts in upholding dharma in defiance of the law. First attempt to seek the truth obscured evidentiary material to manipulate and direct the witness' testimony or the interest of his client alone. Precisely in that position, these advocates are doing victimization of victims. remember the essence of the rule of law is to provide justice to the victims with an objective judicial process. 1 Dr. Frans H. Winarta SH, MH.,Urgensi Pembentukan Dewan Etika Profesi Advokat Nasional,
http://franswinarta.com/EZPDF/Urgensi-pembentukan-dewan-etika-profesi-advokat-nasional%20-%20Hukum %20Online%2025112011%20.pdf Jumat, 25 November 2011. 2 Skripsi, Malpraktek Dalam Advokat Ditinjau Dari Hukum Pidana, http://law.uii.ac.id/images/stories/dmdocuments/FH-UII-Maslpraktek-Dalam-Advokat-Di-Tinjau-Dari-HukumPidana.pdf 3 Hervin Saputra, Assegaf & Wirawan Terbukti Langgar Kode Etik, http://www.vhrmedia.com/vhrnews/berita-detail.php?.g=news&.s=berita&.e=1481 14 MARET 2008 - 18:37 WIB. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid.

This is similar to what was decided in the trial code of conduct in office Peradi Jakarta, Friday (14/02/2008), Honorary Chairman of the Council of Jakarta Peradi Alex R Wangge states M Assegaf and Wirawan Adnan proven to have violated Article 7 letter (e) of the Code of Indonesian Advocates. Assegaf and Wirawan Adnan sanctioned stern warning after the murder of Munir final and binding, as well as pay court costs Rp 3,500,000. Assembly rejected the objection teradu (M Assegaf and Wirawan Adnan) stating the complainant (Committee of Solidarity for Munir) is not competent as a complainant. "Declare who reportedly proven violating Article 7 letter (e) of the Code of Indonesian Advocates. Assembly code of ethics trial argued the complainants are people who are very concerned with the murder of Munir. According to the judges, Suciwati, Munir's widow, very aggrieved over the actions of both lawyers. Then according Asfinawati, the decision would foster public confidence in the profession of advocates who had been considered part of the judicial mafia. "Today is a milestone Peradi states are trying to vindicate professional advocate".6

6 Ibid.