The lawyer, Fredrich Yunardi, is accused of collaborating with a Permata hospital doctor in manipulating the medical record of his client, former House of Representatives speaker Setya Novanto, who was involved in a traffic accident on Nov. 16, 2017. Setya had been attempting to evade being arrested by the KPK in connection with the electronic ID card corruption case.

Fredrich did not accept his arrest, saying that under Article 16 of Advocates Law No. 18/2003, he was entitled to immunity from both criminal and civil suits.

The article states that attorney immunity is granted “when performing their professional duties in good faith for the purpose of defending their clients in court.”

Historically, attorney immunity was granted because in the course of their duties, attorneys, as well as their clients, were prone to vilification by the other party.

Through a number of early decisions taken in common law courts, it can be understood that the first objective of the attorney immunity is to afford litigants the opportunity to freely and fully discuss all aspects of a case in order to assist the court in determining the truth, so that the court’s decision is both fair and just.

Its second purpose is to further the administration of justice by preventing or limiting re-litigation and establishing the finality of court decisions, in the event of disruption to and/or destruction of the attorney-client relationship. The immunity was thus intended to prevent an unhappy litigant from suing his attorney after the court ruled on a case.

Popular

Volcano erupts in North Sulawesi, hundreds evacuated

Dubai roads, airport reel from floods after record rains

Ramadan boosts consumer confidence, retail sales