Gloria Natapradja’s expression after listening to the verdict of the judicial review of the Citizenship Law, Thursday (31/8) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected entirely a petition filed by Ira Hartini Natapradja Hamel, mother of a member of the 2016 national flag-hoisting team (Paskibraka) Gloria Natapradja. The petition reviewed materially the obligation to register a child of mixed marriage as regulated in Law Number 12 Year 2006 on Citizenship (Citizenship Law). The reading session of Decision Number 80/PUU-XIV/2016 was held on Thursday (31/8) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioner argued that her constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of Article 41 of the Citizenship Law, which she considered as a form of discrimination. The stipulation was also claimed by the Petitioner to have caused legal uncertainty and administrative complexity. In the opinion of the Court read by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman, the Court considered that Article 41 of the Citizenship Law was aimed at avoiding legal vacuum, ensuring legal certainty, and providing legal protection for parties affected by changes in legislation.

Furthermore, continued Anwar, the article regulated things that were transitional or temporary by granting Indonesian citizenship to children of mixed marriages under 18 years or who were not married. "It is by registering to the minister through an official or representative of the Republic of Indonesia no later than 4 years after the Citizenship Law was enacted," he explained before the Panel of Judges led by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat.

Thus, Anwar continued, pursuant to Article 41 of the Citizenship Law, those classified as children of mixed marriages would be spared from the possibility of becoming stateless and of having dual citizenship. Anwar continued that these children would automatically obtain Indonesian citizenship until they were 18 years old or already married. By that time, the children of mixed marriages would be required to choose their nationality. "Therefore, the requirement of being under 18 years old or unmarried\\' becomes important to affirm in the provisions of Article 41 of the Citizenship Law," he said.

In relation to the problem experienced by the Petitioner’s child related to the loss of Indonesian citizenship due to failure to register, it is not a matter of the constitutionality of the norm. The Court considers the incident to be the Petitioner’s own fault, whether it occurred due to negligence or ignorance. Negligence, according to the Court, cannot be used as a basis for filing a petition, because in law there is the principle nemo commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria, meaning that nobody can benefit from his own offense and no one can benefit from the offense committed by others.

"Ignorance cannot be used as the basis for filing a petition because within the law there is the ignorantia juris (legis) excusat neminem principle, which means that ignorance of the law does not make a person free of the law,” stressed Anwar.

The Court also provided a solution, that if the Petitioner\\'s child wished to obtain Indonesian citizenship, the Citizenship Law provided a way to realize such a wish through the procedures set forth in Chapter III, namely through the naturalization by meeting the requirements as specified in Article 8.

(Lulu Anjarsari/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)