---

The process of establishment of Law No. 16 of 2011 on Legal Aid (Legal Aid Act) is not based on clarity of purpose and substance of the formula does not reflect the principle of shelter, equality in law and order and the rule of law. The lack of clarity aimed to give free legal assistance to the justice seekers who cannot afford. Then the uncertainty formulation, namely the choice of words or formulation of the word "legal aid" that give rise to multiple interpretations in the implementation.

"The law collide legal aid lawyers with law which has been classified in advance, so that means the establishment of legal aid legislation is not in accordance with Article 6 paragraph (1) item j of Law Number 12 Year 2011 on the establishment of legislation," said Maurits Dominggus Luitnan, when delivering a formal petition for an overview of the Legal Aid Act before the Constitutional Court hearing on Friday (29/06/2012).

Formal testing of the Legal Aid Act was brought by Maurits Dominggus Luitnan, Suhardi Somomoelyono, Abdurahman Tardjo, Paul Pase, TB. Mansjur Abubakar, Umar Tuasikal, Hj. Metiawati, Shinta Marghiyana. These advocates assume the rights and / or potentially harmed their constitutional authority by the Legal Aid Act.

The petitioners feel right and authority as an advocate has been taken over by a legal aid agency or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). The provisions of Article 9 subparagraph (a) the Legal Aid Act authorizes the legal aid for the recruitment of paralegals, law school faculty and students. "The applicant as an advocate of the rights and authority was taken over by NGOs and legal aid organizations to recruit members of the faculty, law students to be given the authority to proceedings in court and outside court," continued Dominggus postulated.

According to the Petitioners, as the advocate of law enforcement, his position is the same as the police, prosecutors and judges. Therefore, the advocate has the right to work and receive benefits and fair treatment and decent employment in accordance with the provisions of Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. In fact, when the police, prosecutors and judges receive compensation from the State in the form of salary, but lawyers do not get it.

The provisions of Article 56 of Act 48/2009 on Amendment Act 4 of 2004 on Judicial Authority, Article 60B paragraph (2) Act 50/2009 regarding Second Amendment Act 7/1989 on the religious court, Section 144C (2) Act 51/2009 regarding Second Amendment Act 5 of 1986 on State Administrative Court indicates that the State bear the cost of seeking justice for the poor. In this case, the advocate has a duty to manage the budget in question.

In the petition, the Petitioners ask the Court declared the establishment of the Legal Aid Act does not meet the provisions of the Act by the 1945 formation, and has no binding legal force.

Preliminary hearing for case No. 59/PUU-X/2012, carried out by Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi (Panel Chair), Achmad Sodiki and Anwar Usman. Applicant advised Ahmad Sumadi Fadlil correct the petition. According to Fadlil, there is unsynchronized between posita and petition. "The petitum requested that the establishment of the Legal Aid legislation is contrary to the provisions of the 1945 Constitution. But, a lot to be explored (in posita) actually a law on the establishment of legislation," said Fadlil.

Fadlil also highlighted inconsistencies in the application. Applicant on the one hand questioned Law Legal Entity formation. On the other hand, the Petitioner also questioned material laws, for example regarding the provision of legal aid services are regulated by Law Agency Law.

Constitutional Justice Achmad Sodiki explained on formal testing. "Testing is the formal testing of the process, the process of its formation when the House plenary on less than a quorum for example, defect formation," explained Sodiki.

In line with Fadlil, Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman also highlights the inconsistency of application, namely on formal testing, but it contains a description of judicial review. "Judging from the form of the petition and the petition itself acknowledges that the subject of this application on formal testing, but what is presented in this commentary regarding judicial review," said Anwar. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)

---