<![CDATA[Constitutional Court Decision Number 126/PUU-XXIV/2026 represents an important development in the governance of advocate organizations in Indonesia by shifting the legal debate from the dichotomy between single-bar and multi-bar systems toward the institutional design of professional regulation. However, studies examining the constitutional implications of this Decision for the relationship among advocate organizations, professional regulators, and the state remain limited. This study analyzes the ratio decidendi and constitutional implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 126/PUU-XXIV/2026 and formulates an institutional model for reconstructing advocate governance in Indonesia. The research employs normative legal research using statutory, case, conceptual, and comparative approaches. Legal materials are analyzed through systematic, historical, teleological, and comparative interpretation. The findings demonstrate that the Decision establishes constitutional parameters for reforming advocate governance by emphasizing the separation between representative and regulatory functions, strengthening professional independence, ensuring legal certainty, and improving institutional accountability. Based on these findings, this study proposes the Plural Representation–Unified Professional Regulation Model, which maintains organizational plurality in representative and professional-development functions while placing standardization, registration, supervision, discipline, and ethical enforcement within an independent and accountable regulatory framework. This model contributes to constitutional-law scholarship by reframing advocate organizations as part of professional governance with public and constitutional dimensions. The study also provides a normative framework for reforming Law Number 18 of 2003 concerning Advocates toward more independent, accountable, and constitutionally coherent professional governance.]]>
