---

Judicial review of Act 18/2003 on Advocates - Case No. 26/PUU-XI/2013 - again held on Tuesday (11/6) afternoon. The trial is scheduled statement on the occasion of the Indonesian Advocates Association (PERADI) and the Congress of Indonesian Advocates (KAI) to Article 16 of Law Advocate about the same protection should be earned by lawyers and legal aid.

On that occasion, PERADI is represented by legal counsel Sutrisno. Sutrisno said, the provisions of Article 16 of the Act contrary to the 1945 Constitution if it is not understood that lawyers cannot be prosecuted both civil and criminal in their profession, for the defense of the interests of clients in and out of court.

"To declare that the provisions of Article 16 of Act 18/2003 does not have binding legal force throughout meant that lawyers cannot be sued either civil or criminal in performing professional duties in good faith for the benefit of the client only defense in court," explained Sutrisno.

Sutrisno continued, in accordance with Article 5 Paragraph (1) of Law no. 18/2003, professional advocate or domicile status as law enforcement (legal enforcer) are free and independent. 

In addition, further Sutrisno, lawyers are supposed to get protection or assurance in carrying out their duties in good faith and legal protection outside the courtroom. Legal aid providers in performing their duties cannot be prosecuted both civil and criminal, both inside and outside the courtroom.

"In addition, Article 28D Paragraph (1) and Article 28H Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution as the primary basis for viewing and / or determine the constitutional rights advocate, guaranteeing the protection of practicing a profession or out of court," added Sutrisno.

Meanwhile, KAI with legal counsel Zakirudin Chaniago said it was clear the main tasks and functions of legal aid lawyers, means the same thing to each other.

"To our knowledge, both Act 18/2003 and Act 16/2011 both come from the initiatives the Government through Ministry of Law and Human Rights. So pretty basic and legal reasons if the petition in quo case to demand that assurance, protection and legal certainty given to lawyers. Not only in court, but also outside the court," said Zakirudin.

Added Zakirudin, it is not fair that the only advocates given guarantees and legal protection when defending his clients in court. Instead, for legal aid, it guarantees and legal protection is done with good faith on and off the court.

"Knowingly or not, the difference in terms of profession trial lawyers with legal aid, making it appears as professional advocate duties under legal aid. Though it’s true the two professions are like two sides of a coin," said Zakirudin.

As known, Petitioner is Rangga Lukita Desnata et al. According to the applicant, the application of Article 16 of the Act only provides recognition and protection in the trial court cannot be sued for civil and criminal legal uncertainty to the applicant.

Petitioners’ argument, the potential loss of constitutional rights for the applicant is very important, since there are colleagues who advocate the applicant directly determined the suspect by the police while running professions outside court without lawyers organization’s internal mechanism. (Nano Tresna Arfana / mh)

---