Realising a Dignified, Integrity-Driven, and Trustworthy Advocate Profession

Discussion on professional regulation is currently attracting significant attention, particularly in the field of legislation. The advocate profession is one of the topics that is always present dynamically. Legislators themselves face various challenges in their efforts to accommodate all interests. Likewise, legal experts have put forward various arguments and thoughts on the regulation of the advocate profession, but it is certainly not easy because there is always pros and cons regarding a particular model. This debate is like two sides of a coin that will never end.

Regulation concerning advocates is indeed considered important and attracts our collective attention. The advocate profession is one of the professions that is very closely connected with society. Advocates themselves are positioned as one of the law enforcers and a noble profession (officium nobile), thus requiring moral integrity and professionalism in addition to their competence.

However, the lack of clarity in practice invites much debate regarding the role of advocates themselves. The advocate profession is often identified with negative things that affect the image of advocates in society.

At present, the regulation of advocates is entering a new chapter. After going through various legal developments and dynamics, on 17 June 2026, the Constitutional Court through Decision No. 126/PUU-XXIV/2026 declared the Advocates Law conditionally unconstitutional if within a maximum period of two years no amendment or replacement is made.

Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates is deemed no longer adequate in responding to developments in the world of advocacy. The Constitutional Court explicitly encourages a new design that separates the representative function of advocate organisations from the regulatory function of the profession.

Not only that, the entire debate regarding the Advocates Law, from advocate organisations to the development of the profession and its organisations, has been touched by the Constitutional Court’s decision. The Constitutional Court in Decision 126/PUU-XXIV/2026 clearly states that the large number of organisations does not automatically improve the quality of advocates. What occurs instead is a problem because there is no common standard regarding recruitment, education, appointment, and enforcement of the code of ethics. The Constitutional Court explicitly suggests separating the representative function and the regulatory function, including the possibility of forming a council, council or assembly as a regulator.

The Constitutional Court emphasises that the independence of advocate organisations does not mean the state cannot be present at all. The state still has an obligation to guarantee the quality of legal services, professional integrity, access to justice, and fair trial.

At present, Commission III of the House of Representatives together with the Expertise Agency of the House of Representatives are also gathering input and aspirations related to the Advocates Bill. In essence, almost all of these aspirations have one goal, namely clearer regulation of the advocate profession, from its establishment to its development.

Constitutional Court Decision Number 126/PUU-XXIV/2026 has also provided important considerations regarding the direction and objectives of the regulation of the Advocates Bill in the future. Therefore, I put forward several key points of thought that need to be considered by the lawmakers.