O

n April 14, 1949, three advocates were sitting at a negotiation table in the Des Indies Hotel, Batavia (old name of Jakarta). In front of them were a number of blond men. The parties in the bilateral negotiation were Indonesia and the Netherlands, and a representative of the United Nations (UN) was appointed as a witness.

At that time, Indonesia was still in the period of post-independence. It was not Sukarno or Mohammad Hatta who were conducting the negotiation process as both were being kept in detention by the Netherlands. Indonesia was represented by a number of advocates such as Mohammad Roem, Ali Sastroamidjojo, John Latuharhary, Supomo,
J. Leimena and AK Pringgodigdo.

They were at the forefront of the negotiations. The Netherlands did not want to lose ground, either. A number of its officials led by JH van Royen were sent down to Batavia along with members such as NS Blom, A Jacob, JJ Van Der Velde and four other advisors. It was known as the Roem-Royen negotiation.

The Netherlands demanded that Indonesia stop waging a guerrilla war and allow the re-entry of the colonials. However, Roem and Sastroamidjojo confronted the offer. Indonesia requested the Netherlands restore the governance of the Republic of Indonesia and recognize the sovereignty of certain areas.

Initially, the Netherlands disagreed but the claims and arguments of Roem and other Indonesians could not be defeated. The UN eventually gave its endorsement and the settlement was reached.

The story shows the greatness of our advocates during the independence era. The expertise shown by Roem and Sastroamidjojo as advocates was dedicated to save the Republic of Indonesia. Likewise, it was shown during the following negotiation, known as the round table conference (RTC). Our advocates gave a significant contribution.

They were preparing a strategy to defend the Republic of Indonesia against the Dutch. Roem and Sastroamidjojo got their Meester in de Rechten (law degree) from Leiden University, the Netherlands. But, they did not profess as advocates.

A number of other advocates actually also conducted the same heroic deed. There were Iwa Koesoemasoemantri, AA Maramis, Tumenggung Wongsonagoro, Mas Besar Martokusumo, Mas Susanto Tirtoprojo, Muhammad Yamin Raden as well as Ahmad Subarjo, Raden Hindromartono, Raden Mas Sartono, Raden Panji Singgih, Raden Samsudin along with Raden Kelvin, Raden Sastromulyono, Raden Ayu Maria Ulfah Santoso, Iskak Cokroadisuryo, Djodi Gondokusumo, RM Sartono and R Sastro Mulyono. They were the first generation of Indonesian advocates.

In the era, the advocates demonstrated how free legal aid (pro bono) should be rendered. They were not merely practicing for the interest of their clients who paid them for their services, but also legal aid for defense of the country.

The span of their practices included defending Sukarno. At that time, Sukarno was put on trial for having violated the Dutch-made criminal provisions. He was detained for some time and then tried for punishment. The trial of Bung Karno was presided over by judge Siegenbeek van Heukelom, plus two indigenous judges namely R Kartakoesoemah and R Wiranataatmadja, and the prosecutor during the trial was R Soemadisoerja.

At that moment in time, the Indonesian advocates were the defense lawyers. The advocates came in throngs willing to stand by Sukarno at the Landsraad, Bandung (currently, the Indonesia Menggugat building). Those present were R Idih Prawiradipoetra, Sartono, Sastromoeljono, Lukman Wiriadinata, Iskaq Tjokrohadisurjo and others as the defense lawyers of Sukarno. They were not paid a dime. What they did was pure legal aid. At the trial, Sukarno presented his plea, which later became known as the Indonesia Menggugat (Indonesia to Sue).

The first generation of Indonesian advocates brilliantly demonstrated how the spirit of the legal aid was implemented. Their efforts turned out to be a success in regards to the state'€™s sovereignty. Again, it shows the powerful effectiveness of the pro bono legal aid.

 Legal aid played a very important role in Indonesian history. And Indonesia has obtained its sovereignty due to the legal aid of the advocates. Now, after 68 years of independence, the legal aid has been somewhat forgotten. The advocates have now been absorbed by luxury.

Legal aid work is only considered as the work lower-class advocates. Even worse, it is seen as a learning experience for beginner advocates. The degree of legal aid has now reached its lowest level.

 Legal aid is in fact high philosophy. In advocate laws, any advocate is required to provide legal assistance. However, his clause has not performed to its optimum level. Many advocates are closing their eyes to the pro bono obligation as they have been busy serving their paying clients.

So, it is no wonder that the term '€œDoing whatever it takes for the payer'€ sounds more and more familiar as the pro bono liability has attracted less interest in the hearts of advocates.

Whereas, an advocate is a noble profession (officium nobile). It is not a profession for abundant worldly material only. The spirit of providing free legal aid should also be inherent in any of the advocates.

Thus, pro bono legal aid should never be seen as a shameful deed. It is in fact a noble activity, which also needs priority.

Now, Law No. 16/2011 on legal aid in particular, is passed. The institution which is able to provide free legal aid cannot be indiscriminant. The government has verified this matter. And until recently, there have been 310 Legal Aid Organizations (OBH) deemed worthy in providing pro bono services. Indonesian Bar Association (AAI) is the only advocate organization that has received certification for legal aid.

Providing free legal aid for the poor is a constitutional mandate. Whereas, the study indicates that 80 percent of prisoners in Indonesia were put into jails practically without any defense lawyers. It is a matter of financial reason justifying that to pay an advocate is unaffordable.

It is unquestionably tragic and at the same time causing a serious problem for the nation. Any individual shall fundamentally be assisted by a defense lawyer when dealing with the law. Thus, this means that we still fail to provide free legal aid services for the poor.

A correction should be made to overcome the condition. The advocates should be encouraged to give pro bono services, considering that the Constitution states that pro bono legal aid shall be provided to preserve the civilization of the nation.

Thus, giving pro bono legal aid is as a noble deed, as the profession of the advocates is also considered as an officium nobile.