Constitutional Court (MK) held a hearing judicial review of Civil Registration Act filed by Commission for Child Protection (KPAI), Modern Diakonia Campus Foundation, and Elsafan Foundation, and several other independent institutions all of which amounted to 12, Wednesday (5/6). At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner Attorney Apong Herlina conveys the main points of his client’s petition.

In front of panel of judges chaired by Judge Maria Farida Indrati, Apong Herlina said his client filed a general explanation of testing, Article 3, Article 4, Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 29 paragraph (1) and paragraph (4), Article 30 paragraph ( 1) and paragraph (6), Article 32 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2), Article 90 paragraph (1) letter a, and Article 90 paragraph (2). While that became a touchstone testing quo article is Article 1 (3), and Article 28B Paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (4) in conjunction with Article 26 paragraph (1), Article 28H Paragraph ( 2), Article 28 paragraph (1), Article 28 paragraph (2), and Article 28 paragraph (4).

Apong said twelfth applicant is directly related groups and aggrieved with the civil explanation stating basically also adopted active stelsel for residents. As a result of the active principle or basic stelsel for residents, continued Apong, residents are required to report the incident to the population and key events that happened to the implementing agencies to meet the necessary requirements in the population registration and civil registration.

"It means that the state does not mandate or obligation to perform active civil registration for residents or citizens. In addition, the impact of the principle of active stelsel for residents is evident from Article 4 of the Act which states civil administration of Indonesian citizens residing outside the territory of the Republic of Indonesia shall report demographic events and important events that happened to the implementing agency or the local civil registry representative government of the Republic of Indonesia to meet the necessary requirements in the population registration and civil registration. So, it is in-line once in situ. The public or to be active citizens, although citizens are located in areas outside of the Unitary Republic of Indonesia," said Apong convey his client lawsuit.

The petition against the applicant, Maria said that Article 32, Article 32 paragraph (1), paragraph (2), Article 90 of the Civil Registration Act cannot be filed again because the Court has never decided a while ago. In addition, Maria looks at a lot of things written many times in the petition of the Petitioners request that Maria asked systematic repaired. Besides Maria asked Apong the reasons more clearly petition per the article.

"You do not spell out here if it happens so who is reporting. Yes, is not it? The country is far too broad, so if anyone born in the top of the mountain so no one reported it states also do not know. Well, that’s what needs to be explained, reformulated so convince the judge that this is indeed a problem, that problem. If the Court had decided yesterday that the recording was indeed necessary, but if it is delayed it is not given directly to the court if it is past 60 days," said Maria gives advice. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh)