Petitioners Rido Pradana and Nurul Fauzi in the judicial review hearing of Law Number 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Monday (26/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) refused the entire petition on the constitutionality of internship term for prospective advocates. The Court considers the phrase "continuously" in Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates to be interpreted as the knowledge and skills obtained during the internship, not about the internship term. Such is the Decision No. 79/PUU-XVI/2018 read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman, accompanied by other constitutional justices on Monday (26/11) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. 

Rido Pradana and Nurul Fauzi from the Legal Aid Institute for the Ansor Youth Movement as Petitioners had previously argued that the 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 deemed contrary to Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. 

In the opinion of the Court read by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, the Court explained that in general it could be concluded that the purpose of the internship was to provide practical knowledge and skills so that prospective advocates could carry out their duties to provide legal services after formally taking an oath as advocates. By participating in the internship, he added, a prospective advocate would understand advocacy management practiced in an advocate office as well as the operations of an advocate office. 

"Because of the importance of the knowledge and skills acquired during the internship, it is only natural that it must be done continuously. In that context, the [word] "continuously" must be interpreted so that the [acquisition of knowledge and skills] is not interrupted," he said. 

Regarding the argument of the Petitioners that the article causes uncertainty and lack of legal protection for interning prospective advocates if their internship is terminated by the advocate office in question before the two-year period, the Court is of the opinion that, in accordance with Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g of the Advocate Law, internship does not have to be done at only one advocate office. The Court stressed the importance that the internship be carried out continuously. 

Justice Manahan also discussed the Petitioners\' concerns regarding the exclusion of previous internship served in an advocate office when moving to another office, concluding so that the previous internship still counts as long as within reason it fulfills the requirement of continuity. 

He added, in relation to commercialization, that the Court was of the opinion that the Petitioners\' argument showed their suspicion and concern of what might occur in the field. If it really happened as they argued, it would not be a constitutionality issue of the norm but rather the problem of implementation of the norm, because in fact the Advocate Law was created to protect advocates and prospective advocates. "Considering based on all the considerations above, the Court is of the opinion that in the Petitioners\' argument regarding the judicial review of Article 3 paragraph (1) letter g of the Advocate Law is unreasonable according to law," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)