Petitioner petitioned the Constitutional Court to investigate and assess the substance, content or material content of chapters and verses contained in the Act on Legal Aid. Because, according to the Petitioners No. 88/PUU-X/2012 this, the articles contained in the Legal Aid Act are very detrimental to them in performing their duties and profession and as an advocate.

"Applied Legal Aid Act is very detrimental to the Petitioners in duty and his profession as a lawyer," explained Dominggus Maurits Luitnan as one applicant, who attended the Introduction session on Friday (21/9), in Meeting Room Panel, the Court Building. Unmitigated, important provisions contained in the Legal Aid Act are almost entirely applied by the Petitioners. These articles are Article 1 (1), subsection (3), subsection (5), and paragraph (6), Article 4 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3), and Article 6 paragraph (2) and (3 ) letter a, letter b, Article 7, Article 8, paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) letter a, letter b, Article 9, Article 10, paragraphs a and c, Article 11, Article 15 paragraph (5), Article 22 Law no. 16 of the year 2011.

Then the applicants are Dominggus Maurits Luitnan, Suhardi Somomoelyono, Abdurahman Tardjo, TB. Mansyur Abubakar, Paul Pase, Metiawati, A. Yetty Lentari. Shinta Marghiyana, each work as an advocate, stated that the articles were contrary to the 1945 Constitution, particularly Article 28D paragraph (1), and paragraph (2).

According to the Petitioners, the formulation of the terms "legal" and "legal aid" contained in Article 1 (1) of the Act is clear enough, but the provision raises multiple interpretations and cause a variety of interpretations in the implementation. "This gives rise to legal uncertainty in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution," said Dominggus.

Moreover, the petitioners said, if the provision of Article 1, paragraph (1) of the Legal Aid, and connected with the provision of Article 1 paragraph explanation (9) Advocates Act, then it would be different. "So that the provisions of Article 1, paragraph (1) of the Legal Aid legal uncertainty, and highly detrimental to the constitutional rights of the Petitioners in duty and his profession as a lawyer," said the applicant.

On the other hand, the provisions of Article 1, paragraph (5) Legal Aid Act, which reads, "Standards are guidelines for the implementation of the Legal Aid Legal Aid provision set by the Minister" said the petitioners as an advocate, ambiguities in ensuring a fair and legal protection with Law Advocate.

Furthermore, the implementation of the Legal Aid Act enacted, according to the petitioners, it was faculty, law students, and NGOs (nongovernmental organizations) authorized to proceedings outside and inside the court. "It was thus, highly detrimental to the constitutional rights of the Petitioners as advocates who have been qualified in accordance with the instructions of the Advocate Law," said Dominggus.

Therefore, in petition, the Petitioner pleaded to the Court to declare the substance of the articles of a quo is against to Article 28D paragraph (1), and paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, and state chapters a quo has no binding legal effect.

On that occasion also delivered counsels of the Constitutional Assembly, led by Anwar Usman, accompanied by Hamdan Zoelva and Achmad Sodiki, respectively as members. "How to write chapter and verse that was considered included the writing of a law. It was no mistake, "said Anwar as advice to the applicant. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)