Principal Petitioner Nanang Kosasih delivering the main points of his revised petition at the petition revision hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates, Tuesday (7/15/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) —  The Constitutional Court (MK) held another hearing on the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2003 on Advocates (the Advocates Law) on Tuesday,July 15, 2025. The Case No. 102/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by Nanang Kosasih, a law graduate, who challenges the incidental restrictions on the provision of legal aid by non-advocates within a family context.

The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat (panel chair), Constitutional Justices Anwar Usman and Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih. The Petitioner appeared without legal counsel and stated that he had revised the petition in accordance with advices from the Panel of Justices. These revisions included the addition of the norms being reviewed, namely Article 1, paragraphs 2 and 9 of the Advocates Law, as well as Article 1, paragraph 3, and Article 8 of Law No. 16 of 2011 ons Legal Aid.

According to the Petitioner, these norms constitute legal definitions that are open to multiple interpretations and have the potential to limit citizens' constitutional rights, particularly in providing or receiving incidental legal assistance outside of professional forums. Nanang requested that the Court provide a constitutional interpretation of the phrase "legal services" so that it is not interpreted narrowly as being limited to sworn advocates.

Furthermore, the Petitioner stated that in the revised petition, he had included the latest legal basis for the Constitutional Court's authority to interpret norms to ensure they are conditionally constitutional. Therefore, the petitioned norm can remain in effect as long as it does not preclude the provision of incidental legal aid within the family and non-litigation sphere.

Therefore, in his Petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare that Article 1 number 2 of the Advocate Law is unconstitutional and has no legal force considering that as long as it is not interpreted as "not limiting the provision of incidental, non-commercial and unprofessional legal assistance by legal scholars who have followed the PKPA who have a direct family relationship with the party being assisted in the context of non-litigation criminal law and pre-trial proceedings." Declaring Article 1 number 9 of the Advocate Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no legal force considering that as long as it is not interpreted as "Including legal assistance in Law No. 16 of 2011 and the provision of incidental, non-commercial and unprofessional legal assistance by legal scholars who have followed the PKPA who have a direct family relationship with the party being assisted, including in the context of non-litigation criminal law and pre-trial proceedings." Declaring that Article 1 number 1 of the Legal Aid Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and has no legal force as long as it is not interpreted as "Legal Aid is a legal service provided by Legal Aid Providers and Incidental Legal Aid Providers free of charge to Legal Aid Recipients".

Also read:

Petitioner Asks Law Graduates Be Allowed to Counsel Family Members

In the previous preliminary hearing, the Petitioner argued that the provisions of the Advocates Law created a legal vacuum because they did not accommodate the possibility of providing legal assistance to law graduates who had not yet been sworn in as advocates. This was deemed to disregard their academic capacity and restrict citizens' access to legal assistance, particularly in emergency or limited circumstances. (*)

Author         : Utami Argawati
Editor          : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR              : Tiara Agustina
Translator    : Donny Yuniarto

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---