The Petitioners provide improvements to the petition for the case of Act No. 6/2011 on Immigration (Article 16 paragraph (1) letter b), Tuesday (16 / 8).

---

Constitutional Court (MK) held its second session with the improvement agenda for a case testing the application of Act No. 6/2011 on Immigration (Article 16 paragraph (1) letter b), Tuesday (16 / 8). Petitioner, Rico Pandeirot, Afrian Bondjol, Julius Irawansyah, Slamet Yuono, Rachmawati, Goddess Ekuwi Vina, and Gusti Made Kartika who works as a lawyer to make improvements to the application as recommended in the hearing before the panel of judges.
 
Rico Pandeirot conveys it to do repairs on almost any application, including a few additions. "In our part of the legal standing further explain the reason and we apply this argument, we refer to the legal standing to Article 16 paragraph (1) letter b Law Immigration that we asked," Rico said about the improvement of legal standing petition.
 
Article 16 paragraph (1) letter b Law Immigration itself reads, "Immigration officials refused to exit the territory of Indonesia in the way the person is: b.Necessary for the sake of inquiry and investigation at the request of the authorities ".
 
Rico also explained that it added a few words the phrase which states, "Refuses people with no limit to who that person is." Petitioner concluded that the person in question in those terms is any person which in itself can be the object of investigation, including the applicant.
 
According to the applicant, if the article in the immigration law was limited to a group of people, for example, only refers to the indigenous peoples, then there is no legal standing for the Petitioner. However, if the article is addressed to everyone, then the potential that chapter can be worn to the Applicant. "If the applicant becomes the object under investigation, moreover, the investigation is a series of activities without having to have a crime, simply by the existence of the alleged criminal act that potentially applies to anyone without any prior incidents of criminal law. That’s what we add in principle, "said Rico.
 
In essence, the Petitioners stated very mind if someone who is still in the process of investigation has been banned from traveling abroad. The reason, the applicant considers that action is a form of deprivation of liberty or a form of forced effort. Prohibition of traveling abroad is also considered to be contrary to Article 1 point 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which reads, "The investigation is a series of investigators to seek and find an event that is suspected as a criminal act in order to determine whether or not carried out investigations in the manner provided by law this ".
 
"Based on the sound of the article (Article 1, point 5 of the Criminal Code, red) is very premature, if still in the investigation, one can already apply the effort force. That the agency was investigating ratio legislators are forced to reduce the effort, "said Rico.
 
Chief of the Panel Muhammad Alim, at the end of the trial remind the Applicant to prepare the evidence about to put forward. Besides the completeness of the submission of evidence, such as stamp duty must also be prepared. "As the Civil preparedness efforts, it’s likely there will be evidence that you suggested, or maybe it was the witness, or perhaps it’s no expert, or perhaps evidence that there was an addition letter or that has not been sealed so that sealed it, "said Alim reminded before the trial was finally closed. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)

---