The Constitutional Court (MK) decided one year rule reporting limit births unconstitutional. The decision to No. 18/PUU-XI/2013 read by Chief Justice M. Akil Mochtar accompanied by other constitutional judges on Tuesday (30/4) at the Plenary Court.

"Declare grant the petition in part. The word ‘consent’ in Article 32 paragraph (1) of Law No. 23/2006 on Population Administration contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Year 1945, all is not meant as a ‘decision’," said Akil read the verdict filed by a parking attendant from Surabaya, Mutholib.

Additionally, Akil said the phrase "up to 1 (one) year" in Article 32 paragraph (1) of Law No. 23/2006 on Population Administration does not have binding legal force. Article 32 paragraph (1) of Law No. 23/2006 on Population Administration more into, "Reporting of birth as mentioned in Article 27 paragraph (1) of the transgressors within 60 (sixty) days from the date of birth, registration done after getting the decision of the Head Agencies local implementers ".

In the Court’s opinion read by Judge Maria Farida Indrati, the Court considered the phrase "consent" contained in Article 32 paragraph (1) of Law 23/2006 may give rise to legal uncertainty and injustice as referred to in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution in the process registration and issuance of birth certificates, as approval is internal in the Implementing Agencies. Therefore, according to the Court, to determine a fair legal certainty, recorded or not on record that late delivery must be reported decision of the Head of the Executing Agencies are based on the assessment of the correctness of the data submitted in accordance with the legislation. "So the phrase ‘consent’ in Article 32 paragraph (1) of the Constitution should be interpreted as a quo ‘decision’ Chief Executive Agencies," he explained.

Mary went, the Court considered a complicated birth certificate services and convoluted due to late deliveries reported to the local Implementing Agencies that exceed the time limit of 60 days up to one year as the article. According to the Court, the delay in reporting the birth of more than one year to be with the court order would be burdensome to the community. "The objection is not just for those who live far away in remote areas but also for those who live in urban areas," said Maria.

Moreover, continued Maria, the court is not an easy process for the general public so as to result in inhibition of the constitutional rights of citizens against the rule of law. The process to obtain a birth certificate and administrative procedures that require a long time and costs a lot more to harm the population, whereas the birth certificate is an important document which is required in a variety of purposes.

"Therefore, Article 32 paragraph (2) of Law 23/2006 in addition contrary to the provisions of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, and Article 28D paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution, it is also contrary to the principles of justice, because justice delayed same as the neglected justice (justice delayed, justice denied)," he said.

While the phrase "up to one year" in Article 32 paragraph (1) of Law 23/2006 be irrelevant after the Article 32 paragraph (2) of Law 23/2006 be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and therefore do not have binding legal force. Therefore, continued Mary, the phrase ‘up to one year’ in Article 32 paragraph (1) of Law 23/2006 should also be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no binding legal effect.

"Therefore, Article 32 paragraph (2) of Law 23/2006 be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and therefore does not have the force of binding the phrase" and (2) "in Article 32 paragraph (3) of Law 23/2006 has no relevance anymore, so it should be declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and therefore did not have binding legal force," said Maria. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)