Meaning contained in the Constitutional Court decision No. 46/PUU-VIII/2010 in testing the Marriage Law of the constitutionality of the norms on the rights of children in the Constitutional Court (MK) is a law paving the way for legal subjects (men) who shall be responsible for the biological child through a judicial mechanism to use based on scientific evidence knowledge and cutting edge technology.

"The Court decision must be interpreted in a legal opening. So indirectly, but there must be evidence (in court)," said Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati to dozens of employees of PT. Bank Central Asia (BCA) Tbk, from representatives of a number of regional offices throughout Indonesia, Friday (13/7), the BCA Tower Building, Jakarta.

The event is organized by PT. BCA, Tbk is discussed implimentasi Constitutional Court decision in general, and especially the Marriage Act filed by Hj. Aisha Mochtar or Machica bint H. Mochtar Ibrahim with Case No. 46/PUU-VIII/2010.

Then as the sole speaker at the event, Farida Marida goes on to say that this decision also has meaning to focus on providing security or protection of the law of civil protection in the form of legislation to the child while not legalizing adultery. "Countries should not let the child have no rights, and should not be discrimination between him and the others," he explained.

While Article 43 paragraph (1) Marriage Law No. 1/1974 before the decision of the Court has noted, "Children born outside marriage has only a civil relationship with her mother and her family". But the article, said Maria Farida, resulting in children born of marriages according to the religion of Islam with a man who is not registered officially will lose its status as a legitimate child with all its consequences.

Whereas in the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 28D paragraph (1) which became one of rock test has been filed by the Petitioner states, "Everyone has the right to recognition, security, protection and legal certainty of fair and equal treatment before the law". Therefore, said Maria Farida, in its decision the Court stated that Article 43 Paragraph (1) Marriage Act contradicts the 1945 Constitution, all meant eliminating a civil relationship with a man who can be proven by science and technology and / or other evidence by law turns out to have a blood relationship as a father.

Besides talking about the decision of the Court about the law of marriage, Maria Farida also explained the status of children born out of wedlock. According to him, the Court has explained in its opinion that the definition of a child born outside of marriage is not clearly defined in the Marriage Law. "The lack of clarity in the formulation of these norms lead to multi-interpretation," explained Professor of Legislation that.

Multi-interpretation of which is, said Maria Farida, a child born of parents who do marriage according to religion, but are not legally registered. Then, understanding the other is the second child born to parents who do not perform marriages, or born of consensual sexual relations.

"If the law gives to the child’s stigma as a child with no father and no one is responsible for the survival and growth develop naturally, then it is an injustice and abuses committed by the state," the judge explained the constitution before the group discussion.

Previously, Maria Farida also explained about the history of the Constitutional Court in Indonesia. He said, at the time of independence the agency to examine the legislation has been proposed by Moh. Yamin. But the proposal was immediately opposed by Soepomo arranged on the grounds that the Constitution does not embrace trias politica, and have not experienced many legal scholars at the time. (Shohibul Umam / mh/Yazid.tr)