Head of the Center for Research, Case Review, and Library Management Pan Mohamad Faiz giving his remarks at the Court’s constitution literacy discussion, Tuesday (7/23/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court’s (MK) Center for Research, Case Review, and Library Management (Puslitka) held a Constitutional Literacy Discussion featuring “Legal Comparison: Between Disciplines and Methodologies” by Ananthia Ayu Devitasari and “The Politics of Dual Citizenship” by Suryo Gilang Romadlon. The event took place at the Court Library on Tuesday, July 23, 2024, and was attended by participants both on-site and online.

In his opening remarks, the Head of the Center, Pan Mohamad Faiz, said that the Court has a library open to the public that can support academic writing, including for students. The library’s book collection can also be accessed through the Court website.

Faiz added that this discussion series is planned to continue until November before handling regional election disputes and will resume after the Court has resolved these disputes. The activities are also open to the public, both on-site and online.

Faiz also revealed that the Court has launched many books. At least 150 books have been published, covering not only legal topics but also other subjects such as artificial intelligence and various other themes.

Legal Comparison

Guided by moderator Faras Aulia Aurelia, Ananthia Ayu Devitasari, who is commonly called Ayu, explained that the background for writing her book was the lack of literature on legal comparison. Ayu revealed that most of the books on legal comparison available in Indonesia are translations that are often difficult to understand. Therefore, she wrote her book as a reference on legal comparison.

Ayu mentioned that legal comparison, like legal philosophy, has many epistemological and ontological dynamics, so she will provide numerous examples. According to Ayu, understanding a legal system requires comparing it with other systems. She cited the example of Germany, where privacy rights are highly esteemed. Unlike in Indonesia, where it is relatively easy for someone to install CCTV cameras, in Germany, one must obtain consent from neighbors to install CCTV around their home.

Legal comparison began when humans acquired the ability to create laws. The earliest recorded book on legal comparison is Aristotle’s La Politica.

According to Ayu, legal comparison is typically conducted for the purposes of legal discovery or reform. For example, France imposes taxes on sugar in food and beverages to promote public health; the sweeter the product, the higher the tax, similar to progressive vehicle taxes. In contrast, America, which leans towards capitalism, makes healthy food more expensive compared to processed industrial foods. She argues that this example demonstrates how law is significantly influenced by various factors.

Ayu added that legal comparison involves not only comparing norms but also examining the societal context or historical background. Legal comparison is used to analyze legal texts in relation to their context.

Dual Citizenship Phenomenon

Suryo Gilang Romadlon, commonly known as Gilang, discussed his book “The Politics of Dual Citizenship.” Gilang explained that the book originated from his confusion about what to write for his dissertation. His dissertation advisors recommended exploring unresolved contemporary legal issues. According to Gilang, the book is part of an effort to find solutions for the Indonesian diaspora scattered across various countries who face difficulties in obtaining Indonesian citizenship.

Gilang explained that the book was written during a time of intense globalization involving individuals, particularly the issue of global citizenship, where people believe there should be no territorial boundaries restricting their rights. He acknowledged that this issue is quite liberal. Therefore, Gilang focused on the issue of dual citizenship, which has been adopted by several countries.

He noted that the phenomenon of dual citizenship existed long before the current trend of naturalizing football players. According to him, some countries have fully or partially adopted dual citizenship. Indonesia, for instance, allows limited dual citizenship for children born of mixed nationality until they reach the age of 18.

The issue of dual citizenship that recently came to light was the case of Gloria Natapradja Hamel, a member of the Presidential Flag Bearer Troop (Paskibraka), who was found to hold dual citizenship in Indonesia and France. Gilang said that a child should be required to officially choose one nationality, and as a result, Gloria lost her Indonesian citizenship.

Another case involves Archandra Tahar, the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources, who also held American citizenship. The Court has also addressed dual citizenship issues in a dispute over local election results in Sabu Raijua Regency. The elected candidate, Orien Riwu Kore, had dual citizenship. Due to his dual citizenship, the Court disqualified Orient P. Riwu Kore.

The phenomenon of dual citizenship prompted Gilang to study the issue from various institutions and organizations, as well as to examine legal products from different countries. His research found that there are no negative consequences for countries that implement dual citizenship.

Gilang explained that many descendants of Indonesians feel disadvantaged because they become citizens of another country due to circumstances such as having one parent from a different country, being born and raised abroad, and not having requested to become citizens of another country.

According to him, dual citizenship status has positive effects, although some concerns can be addressed in several ways, such as strict selection processes, mandatory reporting as implemented in Russia, and scrutiny of high-risk countries. Additionally, it must be acknowledged that there are certain risks associated with the implementation of dual citizenship policies.

In response to questions from participants during the Q&A session on how to identify issues in legal comparison, Ayu said that one must understand and be familiar with the laws being compared. Without this understanding, comparisons can be flawed. Regarding constitutional comparisons, Ayu noted that this is more complex than comparing laws due to the many factors influencing a country’s constitution.

Meanwhile, in response to the question of who has the right to determine citizenship, Gilang stated that individuals have a fundamental right to have their citizenship recognized. However, the ultimate control over determining citizenship remains with the government.

On this occasion, Gilang and Ayu shared tips on writing a book. According to Gilang, one should simply write what comes to mind. Over time, everything will fall into place because the hardest step is the first one.

Author            : Ilham Wiryadi Muhammad
Editor             : N. Rosi
Translator      : Naomi Andrea Zebua/Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (NL)

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---