Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara as an expert in the judicial review of Act No. 18 Year 2003 on Advocates of Article 28 paragraph (1), Article 30 paragraph (2), and Article 32 paragraph (4), Thursday (5 / 5) in Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court Building.
Jakarta, MKOnline - The objective of the Act. 18/2003 on Advocates is to achieve a strong advocate organizations and independent. It is because, advocates is equal to other law enforcers, such as police, prosecutors and judges. Therefore, the matters concerning appointment of an advocate rest in the organization of advocates. "So there is no intervention by the state," said Yusril Ihza Mahendra in the session listening to expert testimony on Thursday (5 / 5) afternoon, at the Plenary Court courtroom. Yusril addition, there were also other experts: Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara and Fajrul Falaakh.
While related to Article 28 of Law Advocates, according to Yusril, said the organization formed an advocate with the letter o and a big (capital letters). And that means, go Yusril, is a name. So, not the usual word or genus. Whereas now, in fact, no organization advocate with Advocates Organization name as the intent of these formulations. That there is even the names of any other advocate organizations, such as the Indonesian Advocates Association (Peradi) or the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI).
He does not deny that with such articles can be said to multiple interpretations. He was then argued, if the article has multiple interpretations, but it does not automatically make the article is unconstitutional. "Can be unconstitutional, but depending on certain conditions," he said. If indeed there is debate about which interpretation is correct, Yusril said, give it to The Constitutional Court to determine its constitutional interpretation.
Then, with regard to Unification of advocate professional (organization), according to Yusril, it does not violate human rights. Since, under Article 28J of the Act of 1945, restrictions on the right can be done by arranging them in an Act. And, he also asserted, professional organizations, lawyers are not the same with civil society organization. Thus, according to him, professional organizations, in this case the advocate organization, it is not subject to the laws on mass organization. "The organization advocates do not need registration or recognition of such organizations," he said.
Almost similar with that opinion, Fajrul Falaakh bependapat, Article 28 of Law Advocate unconstitutional if the phrase would only require the dissolution organisasii interpreted by other lawyers. Or, if you prohibit one lawyer to join existing organizations advocate. Manurutnya, although advocates may actually form the organization, but to advocate organization that has regulatory authority should be just one.
Meanwhile, Abdul Hakim Garuda Nusantara, argue, advocate pewadahtunggalan profession is not contrary to the constitution. According to him, the provisions in the Act Advocate is in UU-forming strategy combines ideally with the needs of social reality. Where, Advocate Law intends to balance between keeping the profession advocates the standardization of an ideal fit with the fixed view of reality many advocates of existing professions.
He also asserted, in the Advocates Act, no article that mentions the organization must be established through a congressional advocate. "None," he said. (Dodi/mh/YDJ)
Friday, May 06, 2011 | 06:50 WIB 240