Stock illustration of an Indonesian passport. - Photo: Shutterstock
JAKARTA: While some observers have hailed the recently passed Immigration Law revision as a move that protects human rights, others have raised a concern it could help potential suspects evade legal processes.
Lawmakers passed the revised 2011 Immigration Law during a House of Representatives plenary session on Thursday (Sept 19), following a rushed deliberation between the government and the House Legislation Body (Baleg) that began and concluded on Sept 11.
Both parties agreed to all revisions, including a provision that restricts travel for persons of interest in the preliminary stage of a legal investigation.
A preliminary investigation involves gathering information and evidence to determine whether a crime has been committed, and only progresses to naming a suspect and opening a formal investigation after sufficient evidence has been gathered.
The previous version of the Immigration Law allowed law enforcement to ban persons of interest from traveling during a preliminary investigation.
The revised law removes this provision, citing a 2011 Constitutional Court ruling that declared it unconstitutional, as it restricted the freedom of movement of individuals that had not been named suspects of a formal investigation.
“The 2011 court ruling had not been addressed through [prior] revisions to the law. Therefore, an ongoing problem persisted in the immigration sector,” Law and Human Rights Minister Supratman Andi Agtas said in addressing the plenary session on Thursday.
Some experts welcomed the move to eliminate the travel ban provision, including international University of Indonesia law expert Hikmahanto Juwana, who argued that it protected the human rights of individuals who were not under investigation.
“A travel ban should only be applicable when a legal process is in place, which starts from an investigation, [then proceeds to] prosecution and a conviction,” Hikmahanto said on Thursday.
“Meanwhile, a preliminary investigation does not indicate that a criminal act has been committed, so it shouldn’t [prevent] people from traveling abroad,” he said.
But others observers expressed concern that the revised law could hinder law enforcement officers from doing their job.
Zaenur Rohman, a researcher with the Center for Anti-Corruption Studies at the Gadjah Mada University law school, argued instead that investigators might be prevented from gathering additional information from persons of interest if they traveled abroad during a preliminary investigation, as such individuals could avoid appearing at a questioning simply because they were not physically present in the country.
“What’s equally concerning is that the [revised law] could provide potential suspects with an opportunity to flee with [any] illicit proceeds from their crimes,” he said on Thursday.
This is not without precedent, as several persons of interest have fled abroad before law enforcement officers could name and detain them as suspects in past graft cases.
Among the more notorious incidents involved Nazaruddin in mid-2011.
The former Democratic Party treasurer fled to Singapore before the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) had named him as a suspect in several graft cases under investigation by, including one on the sports complex development project in Hambalang, West Java.
KPK investigators eventually tracked him down in August 2011 and arrested him in Colombia.
But the Immigration Law revision might not affect the KPK, as the revised KPK Law enacted in 2019 allows the antigraft body to issue travel bans only during the course of an open investigation.
“A travel restriction is imposed only after the KPK issues a [notification of commencement of investigation]. We never do so during the preliminary stage of an investigation,” said KPK spokesperson Tessa Mahardhika.
Even so, Zaenur said the revised provision could still complicate graft investigations by the National Police and the Attorney General’s Office, which were subject to the Immigration Law.
Meanwhile, rights activist Usman Hamid expressed his doubt that the law revision would contribute to better protection of human rights, especially for vocal government critics.
He also said the new law did not fully address concerns that the government could ban travel for certain individuals as a means of political control.
“While the new law only allows [imposing] a travel restriction during an investigation, in many cases, these investigations can be expedited and politicised to inhibit the freedom of movement of individuals critical of government policies,” said the executive director of Amnesty International Indonesia.
Usman cited the case of human rights lawyer Veronica Koman, who was banned from traveling after police named her as a suspect in 2019 over allegations of spreading false information and provocation pertaining to human rights issues related to Papua.
He said Vernoica’s case was an illustration of how immigration policies could be misused to restrict free speech and urged the government to implement stronger oversight on the Immigration Law revision, in particular to prevent misuse of the travel ban by law enforcement. - The Jakarta Post/ANN
