Discussion on professional regulation is currently attracting\nsignificant attention, particularly in the field of legislation. The\nadvocate profession is one of the topics that is always present\ndynamically. Legislators themselves face various challenges in their\nefforts to accommodate all interests. Likewise, legal experts have put\nforward various arguments and thoughts on the regulation of the advocate\nprofession, but it is certainly not easy because there is always pros\nand cons regarding a particular model. This debate is like two sides of\na coin that will never end.<\/p>\n
Regulation concerning advocates is indeed considered important and\nattracts our collective attention. The advocate profession is one of the\nprofessions that is very closely connected with society. Advocates\nthemselves are positioned as one of the law enforcers and a noble\nprofession (officium nobile), thus requiring moral integrity and\nprofessionalism in addition to their competence.<\/p>\n
However, the lack of clarity in practice invites much debate\nregarding the role of advocates themselves. The advocate profession is\noften identified with negative things that affect the image of advocates\nin society.<\/p>\n
At present, the regulation of advocates is entering a new chapter.\nAfter going through various legal developments and dynamics, on 17 June\n2026, the Constitutional Court through Decision No.\u00a0126\/PUU-XXIV\/2026\ndeclared the Advocates Law conditionally unconstitutional if within a\nmaximum period of two years no amendment or replacement is made.<\/p>\n
Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates is deemed no longer\nadequate in responding to developments in the world of advocacy. The\nConstitutional Court explicitly encourages a new design that separates\nthe representative function of advocate organisations from the\nregulatory function of the profession.<\/p>\n
Not only that, the entire debate regarding the Advocates Law, from\nadvocate organisations to the development of the profession and its\norganisations, has been touched by the Constitutional Court\u2019s decision.\nThe Constitutional Court in Decision 126\/PUU-XXIV\/2026 clearly states\nthat the large number of organisations does not automatically improve\nthe quality of advocates. What occurs instead is a problem because there\nis no common standard regarding recruitment, education, appointment, and\nenforcement of the code of ethics. The Constitutional Court explicitly\nsuggests separating the representative function and the regulatory\nfunction, including the possibility of forming a council, council or\nassembly as a regulator.<\/p>\n
The Constitutional Court emphasises that the independence of advocate\norganisations does not mean the state cannot be present at all. The\nstate still has an obligation to guarantee the quality of legal\nservices, professional integrity, access to justice, and fair trial.<\/p>\n
At present, Commission III of the House of Representatives together\nwith the Expertise Agency of the House of Representatives are also\ngathering input and aspirations related to the Advocates Bill. In\nessence, almost all of these aspirations have one goal, namely clearer\nregulation of the advocate profession, from its establishment to its\ndevelopment.<\/p>\n
Constitutional Court Decision Number 126\/PUU-XXIV\/2026 has also\nprovided important considerations regarding the direction and objectives\nof the regulation of the Advocates Bill in the future. Therefore, I put\nforward several key points of thought that need to be considered by the\nlawmakers.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/realising-a-dignified-integrity-driven-and-trustworthy-advocate-profession-1787935890", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }