One of the principal applicant, H.F. Abraham Amos (case 71/PUU-VIII/2010) listening to the Decision of the Act No. 18/2003 on Advocates, on Monday (27/6) in Plenary Court Building

Three requests for a judicial review of Act No. 18/2003 on Advocates decided by the Constitutional Court on Monday (27 / 6) at the Plenary Room. Three cases are No matter. 66/PUU-VIII/2010, 71/PUU-VIII/2010, and 77/PUU-VIII/2010. For case 66, the Court stated that the Petitioners' petition is ne bis in idem partly and some are not proven. The Court stated the petition of the Petitioners during the judicial review of Article 28 paragraph (1) and Article 32 paragraph (4) of Advocate Law cannot be accepted. "Rejecting the petition for the addition and the rest," said Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD.

While the two other cases, cases 71 and 77, the Court stated not acceptable."Petition of the Petitioners ne bis in idem entirely," Mahfud said. For information, the ne bis in idem is a legal principle which states that the same case that had been cut and the binding can not be sued again.

In its legal considerations, the Court argued the review of the constitutionality of Article 28 paragraph (1) and Article 32 paragraph (4) of Law Advocates have petitioned to review and has been sentenced in a decision of the Constitutional Court No. 014/PUU-IV/2006, November 30, 2006. "Along about the clauses that have been tested mutatis mutandis with the same stone of test to be considered also in the decision a quo," the Court wrote in one of its consideration. In the decision, the Court stated the Petitioners' petition was rejected in its entirety.

While related to judicial review of Article 30 paragraph (2) Advocate Law which states, "Every Advocate appointed under this Act shall be a member Organisas Advocate", according to the Court, is a logical consequence of the provisions of Article 28 paragraph (1) of the Advocate. "So the testing of this norm must be declared unreasonable law," said MK.

Regarding the test of Article 32 paragraph (4) of the Advocate Law, the Constitutional Court argued, this article has also been petitioned and been decided by the Court in the same decision. In a decision dated 30 November 2006, in one of its legal considerations the Court stated, "Whereas Article 32 paragraph (3) and paragraph (4) Advocate Law is really a chapter that has been completed with a two-year deadline has passed and has been the establishment PERADI as Advocate organization that is the only container Advocates' profession, so it is not relevant to questionable constitutionality. "

Similarly to the case No. 71/PUU-VIII/2010, the test of Article 28 paragraph (1), Article 30 paragraph (2) and Article 32 paragraph (4) Law Advocate with the touchstone of Article 28, Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28E Paragraph ( 3), and Article 28J Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. According to the Court, in addition touchstone of Article 28 UUD 1945, has also been used and decided upon in the Constitutional Court decision No. 014/PUU-IV/2006 and no. 66/PUUVIII/2010. "Thus, under article 60 of Law on the Constitutional Court application should not be filed again, because basically brought under the same basic reasons," said one of the Constitutional Court.

Advocate candidate are not sworn by Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI) by the High Court resulting they cannot attend in court, according to the Court, it is not related to the constitutionality of the norms being applied for testing. "Rather, the problem the application of Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Advocates who have been considered and decided in the Court Number 101/PUU-VII/2009, dated December 30, 2009," wrote the Court. Based on these considerations, the Court finally decided to mengeyampingkan petition of the Petitioner.

With regard to the constitutionality of the phrase "sole" which according to the Petitioners contrary to Article 28C Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, the Court argued, a single container Advocate Organizations, in essence, did not deter everyone to develop themselves to meet their basic needs. "The phrase 'only' did not lead to discriminatory treatment," MK said. "Being an Advocate who is consciously chosen by the applicant is a choice according to conscience, so consciously also be bound by the provisions relating to the choice of a profession that is becoming the sole member of an Advocate."

The petitioners in this case consists of individual lawyers or advocates who represent some of the organizations that exist in Indonesia. For case 66, among others filed by Frans Hendra Winarta, Maruli Simorangkir, Nursyahbani Katjasungkana, et al (PERADIN). For case 71, by H.F. Abraham Amos, Togar Efdont Sormin, Harisan Arita, et al. While the case 77, petitioned by rail advocates who have not sworn in, among others: Pelu Husen, Andrijana, Abdul Amin Monoarfa, et al. (Dodi/mh/Yazid.tr)