The trial continued reviewing Act 16/2011 on Legal Aid was held back to the 1945 Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (30/10). Case with Number 88/PUU-X/2012 is filed by the Association of Advocates / Lawyers Indonesia (HAPI), which is represented by Maurits Dominggus Luitnan, Suhardi Somomoelyono, Abdurahman Tardjo, TB. Mansyur Abubakar, Malkam Bouw, Paul Pase, L. A. Pepper, Metiawati, A. Yetty Lentari and Shinta Marghiyana.

The trial presented by the Related Parties of BKBH UMM and BKBH Stikubank University of Semarang. Halim B representatives from Legal Aid Advocate Pos Indonesia as well as a Related Party, said the argument that the applicant states that the articles of the Petitioner petitioned for multiple interpretations and there is no rule of law so contrary to Section 28D and Section 28J of the 1945 Constitution, a proposition that is not grounded and correlated at all. "This is because the Act a quo has given a clear definition. The provisions of Article 1 of Law a quo reflects the principles, purposes and goals of the enactment of general law as the basis of reference other reference section in the Act a quo. In addition the Act a quo had to accommodate the needs of those seeking legal assistance in remote areas and cannot afford. So the petition without foundation and relevance and Act a quo does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution," he said.

Halim continued obligation for lawyers to deliver legal aid as a form of professional liability in Government Regulation No. 83/2008 on Conditions and Procedures for the Provision of Legal Assistance Free of Charge and given freely. However, further Halim, this is not going well, the same as its parent legislation, namely Law no. 18/2003 on Lawyers. "Law Advocates also not overshadow it, because it has not established advocate organizations as the sole container as regulated profession advocate Law giving rise to a prolonged conflict between advocates of the impact on the organization's failure to improve the human resource organization advocates as a noble organization, which gives an explanation legal assistance to those seeking justice. This not only refers to the profit gains alone. In addition, the organization advocates that there will be in the provincial capital areas not reached up to the area "explained Halim.

Meanwhile, the Muslim Brotherhood as the representative of UMM BKBH Fachrozi expressing vague legal standing because it is not clear Applicants applying as an advocate of the institute advocate or advocate of the Working Committee of Indonesian Advocates (KKAI). "In addition, the Petitioner also argues in its legal position as an advocate, but in Law. 18/2003 on Lawyers did not mention KKAI. Because Petitioner obscure position (obscuur libel), then it is very worthy Constitutional judges rejected the petition, "he said.

Principal applicant in his petition argued that feel aggrieved by the entry into force of Article 1 paragraph (1), (3), (5) and (6), Article 4 paragraph (1) and (3), Article 6 paragraph (2) and (3) letters a, b, c, d, e, Article 7 paragraph (1) letter a, b, paragraph 2 letters a, b, c, d, and paragraph (4), Article 8 paragraph (1) and (2), Article 9 letters a, b, c, d, e, f, g, Article 10 letters a and c, Article 11, Article 15 paragraph (5), Article 22 of Law no. 16 Year 2011 on Legal Aid to the 1945 Constitution. According to Petitioner, the formula in the articles concerning legal assistance and legal aid raises multiple interpretations and various interpretations in the implementation, and it is legal uncertainty as contrary to Article 24 paragraph (3), Article 28 paragraph D (1), Article 28D paragraph (2), and Article 28J paragraph (2), 1945. The provisions of Article 1, paragraph (1) of the Legal Aid, and connected with an explanation of the provisions of Article 1, paragraph (9) Advocates Act, then it would be different that the provisions of Article 1, paragraph (1) of the Legal Aid legal uncertainty, and highly detrimental to the rights- constitutional rights of the Petitioners in duty and his profession as a lawyer. 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 considered detrimental to the constitutional rights of the Petitioners as advocates who have been qualified in accordance with the instructions of the Advocate Law. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)