Judicial review on the constitutionality of Act No. 6/2011 on Immigration filed by Prof. Dr. Yusril Ihza Mahendra, held again at the Constitutional Court (MK), Wednesday (11/16/2011). Both the Government and the Parliament explained that the deadline for overseas prevention has priority legal certainty and prevention is temporary.

Statement submitted by the Government party Suwarsono, states Article 97 paragraph (1) Immigration Act explicitly specify a period of prevention against a person to get out of the territory of Indonesia. According to the Government, the provision has been providing legal certainty for determining the period of prevention and prevention limitative extension of six months at most.

"If after the end of prevention and no prevention or renewal decisions are legally binding court ruling stating that remain free of a case which is why prevention, the prevention is ended by law, as stipulated in Article 97 paragraph (2) and paragraph ( 3) Immigration Act, "said Suwarno.

Contemporary

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives in the statement delivered by Yahdil Abdi Harahap stated, provisions in Article 97 paragraph (1) provides authority to the Immigration to take precautions while, during the process of inquiry and investigation on a person to travel outside the Homeland.

"Prevention is viewed from the word temporary, will not be permanent or continuous, and as termed by the applicant is for life, even though prevention can be renewed any time within 6 months. There may be restrictions that it is in the period of investigation and inquiry process, "explained Yahdi.

Parliament does not agree with the proposition stated Yusril, because normatively, the provisions of article being tested is a policy choice or legal policy-forming Law in order to simplify and expedite the process of investigation or due process of law. "Thus, the provisions of Article 97 paragraph (1) of the Act a quo is not sufficient reason to declare the law has no legal certainty, because this provision applies to any person suspected of committing a crime and because the offense is for the investigation and the investigation can subject to prevention, and it applies as long as the process of investigation and the investigation took place, "explained Yahdi.

The trial for a case was registered with No. 64/PUU-IX/2011 held by nine constitutional justices who chaired Moh. Mahfud MD. Agenda today is to hear statements of the Government, Parliament, and Witness / Expert from the Petitioner and the Government. The trial reopened on Wednesday, November 23, 2011.

As in the main petition, Yusril objected to the enactment of Article 97 paragraph (1) Immigration Act which states "The term preventive effect of 6 (six) months and each time may be extended no longer than 6 (six) months". Norm in the article according to Yusril, containing arbitrary actions, in the absence of clarity regarding the time limit how many times can extend it. These provisions according to Yusril, contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28E Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. (Rosihin Nur Ana / mh/Yazid.tr)