---

The Constitutional Court held a preliminary hearing testing No.6/2011 on Immigration Law (Immigration Law) - Case No.64/PUU-IX/2011 - on Thursday (29 / 9) afternoon at the Court Panel Meeting Room. Petitioner is Yusril Ihza Mahendra, who filed the petition to examine Article 97 of Immigration to the provisions of Article 1 Paragraph (3), Article 28D Paragraphs (1) and Article 28E Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

Petitioners ask the judges to perform testing of Article 97 paragraph (1) Immigration-related several state officials the authority to prevent a person and extend prevention is based on a specific reason, to travel abroad or "leave the territory of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia".

"More Article 97 paragraph (1) Law No.6/2011 reads, ‘Duration preventive effect of 6 (six) months and each time can be extended more than 6 (six) months’," said Yusril.

Petitioners assume, with the enactment of norms in Article 97 paragraph (1) Immigration Act which states "The term preventive effect of 6 (six) months and each time can be extended more than 6 (six) months", then the constitutional rights have been harmed. Norm is related to the preceding provisions of Chapter X of Act No.6/2011 specifically set the "Prevention and deterrence" which gives authority to the several state officials, including Attorney General, to prevent someone from leaving the territory of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia (NKRI)based on certain grounds.

 

When applying for testing of the Act, Applicant to leave the region exposed to the prevention of Homeland for 6 (six) months by the Attorney General Decision No: Kep-201/D/Dsp.3/06/2011 dated June 27, 2011 on "Prevention in Criminal Case”. The main reason preventing the Petitioner, as represented contained in the preamble referred to the decision was "for the sake of judicial operations in the field of investigation", because Petitioner allegedly involved in criminal cases and has been declared as suspects since June 24, 2010.

Prior to the issuance of Attorney General Decision No: Kep-201/D/Dsp.3/06/2011, then the Attorney General has previously been issued Decision No: Kep-212/D/Dsp.3/06/2010 dated June 25, 2010 about " Prevention in the criminal case "that the dictum prevent Petitioner to leave the territory of Republic of Indonesia for 1 (one) year with the same reason that for the" interests of judicial operations in the field of investigation ".

Petitioner then takes the fight over attorney general’s decision by suing the Jakarta State Administrative Court. Deputy Attorney General Darmono at first insisted that the decision issued by the Attorney General to use the laws that have been revoked and declared invalid, as "a legitimate decision and it is correct". Attorney General’s decision sparked a polemic between the Petitioner and the ranks of the Attorney General, Minister of Justice and Human Rights as well as some officials of Directorate General of Immigration, Ministry of Justice and Human Rights.

But when a lawsuit has been filed in the Jakarta State Administrative Court, the Attorney General suddenly revoke No.195/D/Dsp.3/06/2011 Decision dated June 24, 2011 and Prevention issued a new decree which Decision No: Kep-201/D/Dsp .3/06/2011 dated June 27, 2001. This decision essentially prevents dictum applicant to leave the territory of Republic of Indonesia for 6 (six) months, according to the maximum period provided by Article 97 paragraph (1) of Act No.6/2011.

Petitioner considers the reasons the Attorney General to extend the prevention against Petitioner because "judicial operations in the field of investigation" as the reason that made-up, reasonably suspected to be an act of deliberate and arbitrary and contain political motive to eliminate the constitutional rights and the right to freely leave the territory Homeland anytime applicant chooses.

Based on various legal arguments that have been proposed, the Applicant concluded that the norms of legislation that provided for in Article 97 paragraph (1) Immigration Act contrary to the norms of the constitution as stipulated in Article 1 Paragraph (3), Article 28D Paragraphs (1) and Article 28E Subsection (1) of the 1945 Constitution. (Nano Tresna A. / mh/Yazid.tr)

---