---

Petitioners Rido Pradana and Nurul Fauzi from the Legal Aid Institute for Ansor Youth Movement explaining their petition in the preliminary judicial review hearing of the Advocate Law, on Thursday (4/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The preliminary judicial hearing of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates was held by the Constitutional Court on Thursday afternoon (4/10). The petition No. 79/PUU-XVI/2018 was submitted by Rido Pradana and Nurul Fauzi from the Legal Aid Institute for the Ansor Youth Movement. 

According to the Petitioners, several provisions in Law No. 18/2003 potentially harm the rights of the Petitioners. "Law Number 18 of 2003 was petitioned for judicial review to the Constitutional Court. However, the Petitioners observed some differences [between the current and the past petitions], making the petition we submitted not nebis in idem," explained Nurul Fauzi, one of the Petitioners. 

Nurul mentioned the Constitutional Court Decision No. 19/PUU-I/2003 that outlined the Petitioners\\\' petition. The Petitioners of that case argued that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d had caused discrimination for law graduates aged 21 or 22 years, so it was contrary to Article 27 paragraph (1) juncto Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. 

"The second petition challenged the Advocate Law in 2015, then Decision No. 884/PUU-VIII/2015 was made. The Petitioners at that time argued that the Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law had caused discrimination and uncertainty because there were no maximum requirements to become an advocate," said Nurul before the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih. 

The Petitioners argued that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law had caused discrimination for the Petitioners to become advocates and prevented the Petitioners from having equal opportunities to work as advocates, so it was contrary to Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. 

In addition, the Petitioners argued that Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g of the Advocate Law had caused uncertainty for the Petitioners to become advocates, so it was contrary to Article 28D paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

Meanwhile, Rido Pradana said that based on Article 1 numbers 1 and 2 of the Advocate Law, it can be concluded that advocates are one type of profession. Based on the Indonesian Language Dictionary (KBBI), a profession is a field of work based on certain education, expertise, skills, vocation, and so on. Besides that, the advocate is also a noble profession that demands moral values: a. Courage to act with determination to act in accordance with the demands of the profession; b. Awareness of its obligations; c. High idealism. 

Rido said, as a legal profession, age restriction is not an absolute thing for the advocate. The provision of Article 3 paragraph (1) letter d of the Advocate Law that limits the age to become an advocate to at least 25 years old, had caused obstruction for every citizen to become an advocate that should not be based on age restriction, but on knowledge, skills and legal experience, so the minimum age limit is no longer relevant to the advocate profession because the parameter of the advocate profession is not age. 

Legal Standing 

Regarding the Petitioners\\\' arguments, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked the legal standing to be improved. He questioned the constitutional losses. "If you are now 23 years old, after 2 years of internship you will be 25 years old. Is there any constitutional loss to you? If you already received an undergraduate degree at 20 years old, if you want to be an advocate, where you must be 25 years old, after two years of internship, there is still two years left when you will be unemployed. There is constitutional loss. Now, what do you really question?” Justice Suhartoyo asked.

While, Justice Enny Nurbaningsih confirmed that the Constitutional Court\\\'s decision was actually comprehensive. "Arguing the issue of emotional maturity, right? Maturity is a measure. Then the academic side, and so on. Because of what? Earlier it was said that the advocate does not work alone in a quiet place. They deal with the law enforcement in an integrated criminal justice system. That must be considered," she said. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---