---

Applicant’s Witness Megawati Gani cried when delivering testimony in the session of Case No. 80/PUU-XIV/2016, on Thursday (10/11) in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie 

 

 

 

Ira Hartini Natapradja Hamel, mother of dual-citizenship flag hoisting troop member (Paskibraka) Gloria Natapradja, summoned witnesses who experienced similar condition to her daughter; lost Indonesian citizenship due to passing time limit of registration. The Applicant’s Witnesses delivered testimony in the session of Case No. 80/PUU-XIV/2016, on Thursday (10/11).

One of the Applicant’s Witnesses was Andra Widyana, Balinese woman who married with British man. Andra delivered that she registered her child as ‘child of mother’ (anak ibu) because she did unofficial marriage (nikah siri). She has attemted to register her children’s citizenship to immigration. However the immigration eventually determined her children are British. She wanted that her children hold limited dual citizenship. She then took legal attempt until the last attempt; registration to Justice and Human Rights Ministry. However in the Ministry, the registration of her children was rejected because it has passed the time limit of 4 years.

“When registering children to Justice and Human Rights Ministry, it turned out that the registration for child who born prior to the enactment of the Act has over. I cannot register them because the time limit has passed. It (time limit, ed.) is written in the Act and Ministry officials have to do obey that. Eventually, my children are determined as foreigner and I have to sponsor their limited resident permit,” said Andra to Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati.

Andra argued that her struggle in registering her children’s citizenship will be success if the provision of obligatory registration within 4 years as stipulated in Article 41 Act of Citizenship abolished.

Other Applicant’s Witness Yuliana delivered similar testimony. Yuliana who married with Australian citizen had to sponsor her 14 years-old child because her child used temporary residential permit (ITAS). One year prior to the permit expired, she heard that child born from intermarriage couple is entitled to get dual-citizenship. She intended to register her child to get limited dual-citizenship in order to fulfill her child’s rights.

“In October 2014, I went to immigration office in Denpasar to process it (limited dual citizenship, ed.) using supporting documents, such as passport, birth certificate, my ID card (KTP, ed.) and family card. I was shocked when the officials told me that the request (of limited dual-citizenship, ed.) has closed since 2010 and the request was no longer filed to immigration office, but to Justice and Human Rights Minister office by attaching Justice and Human Rights Minister Decree. The time limit of request was within 4 years since 2006. At that time, my child was 12 years old. It was very disappointing for me,” said her.

The Applicant argued her constitutional rights have been harmed by Article 41 Act of Citizenship. The Article stated, “Child who born as referred in Article 4 letter c, letter d, leter h, and letter l, and child who recognized or legally adopted as referred in Article 5 and prior to this Act enacted, as well as yet 18 years old or unmarried, grants Indonesian citizenship based on this Act by registering to Minister via Indonesian Official or Representative not later than 4 years since this Act enacted,” (“Anak yang lahir sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 4 huruf c, huruf d, huruf h, huruf l dan anak yang diakui atau diangkat secara sah sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 5 sebelum Undang-Undang ini diundangkan dan belum berusia 18 (delapan belas) tahun atau belum kawin memperoleh Kewarganegaraan Republik Indonesia berdasarkan Undang-Undang ini  dengan mendaftarkan diri kepada Menteri melalui Pejabat atau Perwakilan Republik Indonesia paling lambat 4 (empat) tahun setelah Undang-Undang ini diundangkan”).

The Applicant assessed that her child Gloria who born from an intermarriage has been discriminated by the Article. As known, Gloria is 16 years old and yet married, so she didn’t fulfill administrative requirements to choose citizenship either her mother’s Indonesian citizenship or her father’s French citizenship. Such condition made her often questioned during public service, particularly in administrative service and service that relates to citizenship.

The Applicant assessed that Article 41 contrary to Article 28D (1) and (4) the 1945 Constitution because the obligation to register citizenship for child under 18 years who born from intermarriage and raised up in Indonesia is borne to Applicant’s family. Whereas, according to the Applicant, Article 28D (1) the 1945 Constitution indeed bestows obligation in implementation of recognition, guarantee, protection, equality before the law, including right to citizenship, to the State. The Applicant argued the Article causes administrative difficulty for her. She argued the difficulty is contrary to constitutional provision which the State obliges to give ease to citizen as stated in Article 28H (2) the 1945 Constitution. (Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Prasetyo Adi N)

---