The rules regarding special education providers advocate profession as listed Article 2 paragraph (1) of Law No. 8 of 2013 on Advocates has blurring of meaning. It is delivered Lecturer in Constitutional Law Studies, University of Pancasila M. Rullyandi when becoming an applicant expert in case No. 103/PUU-XII/2013 held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (18/2) at the Plenary Court. Petitioners are advocates and legal consultants of the Law Firm “OC Kaligis & Associates“.

" Word phrase “implemented”, giving commentary contains a formula that is inconsistent with the constitutional order, to the exclusion of constitutional rights, namely the right to provide education, then there blurring meaning as if the state gives full authority (bevoegdheid) to organizations advocate in this case recognized is PERADI to hold power completely (absolutely power) in order to provide professional education advocate," he said before the panel of judges, led by the Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva.

Rullyandi explained professions education providers should be able to advocate cooperation with a third party in the interpretation of these norms. However, further Rullyandi, because there is no certainty that norm formulation. " In other words, the organization advocates doing so can lead to arbitrariness and subjective arrogance that led to discrimination even within the scope of practice," he said.

In addition, Rullyandi explained the formulation of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Act there is also opposition to the principle of the formation of legislation, in particular Article 5, paragraph e of Law No. 12 of 2011, namely the principle of clarity of formulation and Article 6 letter g and i of the Act that the legislation should reflect the principle of fairness and legal certainty.

In the trial, Ahmad Yani was present representing DPR. In his statement, he explains this law is still in the application and implementation has not been fully described mandated by Law No. 18 of 2003. Later, it is revealed that this law exists also in its implementation raises a wide range of issues based on the facts, the reality, both sociological aspects that we found in the implementation of this law. “By leaving a thing like that, that we respect His Majesty is currently the House of Representatives are using their constitutional rights, namely conduct a legislative review of the Act No. 18 Year 2003," he said.

As known, the Petitioner felt their constitutional rights violated as a result of the enactment of Article 2 paragraph (1) of the Advocate that says, “Who can be appointed as an advocate is an undergraduate background in higher education and the legal profession after attending a special education advocate who advocate the organization’s performance“. Advocate organization in this case is the Indonesian Advocates Association or Peradi. However, in practice, Peradi to the detriment of the Petitioners to stop the implementation of the Special Education Profession Advocate (PKPA) for no apparent reason and arbitrary, although the Applicant held PKPA was in partnership with Peradi. In addition, the article gives absolute authority to Peradi as competent institutions provide education advocate. This also causes the Applicant cannot be held without Peradi’s permission education advocates. Next, for no apparent reason Peradi not induct candidates’ advocate who has met the requirements to be appointed as an advocate. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)