View Full Version : Visa: SosBud vs Tourist Visa - clarification
Some friends have been asking me what to do and I thought it was pretty clear. However, on some other forums (e.g. Travel, Dutch Indo, etc.), they got contradictory information.
As far as I know, only a Social Budaya visa can be extended. The extension of a Tourist Visa is not possible. The VOA is yet another story of course.
It is based on this law:
KEPUTUSAN MENTERI KEHAKIMAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR M.02-IZ.01.10 TAHUN 1995
TENTANG VISA SINGGAH, VISA KUNJUNGAN, VISA TINGGAL TERBATAS, IZIN MASUK, DAN IZIN KEIMIGRASIAN
(1)Izin Kunjungan dapat diperpanjang kecuali untuk Izin Kunjungan Wisata.
The answers they get from other people however, include these remarks:
This is an old law of '95 and there have been modifications and an addendum since.
This law has been changed in 2011.
In 2006 the SosBud and Tourist Visa both got the code 211 and so they are the same.
An agent can convert the Tourist Visa to a SosBud while you're in RI.
Many people even declare they have extended their Tourist Visa, with or without sponsor. (E.g. in Ambon and Makassar.) If that required a sponsor that would be easy explainable of course: a mix-up by Immigration. (They thought they dealt with a SosBud.) I could not make up if they used an agent for the extension or not.
Now I realize it's always the person him/herself who gets into trouble when they have a government agency done something which isn't kosher after the facts. (It's not so obvious to point a finger and say: they said it was okay.) Therefore it's rather important to get this out of the way...
(1) ...As far as I know, only a Social Budaya visa can be extended.
(2) This is an old law of '95 and there have been modifications and an addendum since.
(3) This law has been changed in 2011.
(4) In 2006 the SosBud and Tourist Visa both got the code 211 and so they are the same.
(5) An agent can convert the Tourist Visa to a SosBud while you're in RI.
(6) Many people even declare they have extended their Tourist Visa, with or without sponsor. (E.g. in Ambon and Makassar.) If that required a sponsor that would be easy explainable of course: a mix-up by Immigration. (They thought they dealt with a SosBud.) I could not make up if they used an agent for the extension or not...
(1) Not only Sosial Budaya Visa - single entry (Social Cultural Visa - single entry) , as Article 47(1) (you posted above) states . Other , common in this Forum , is the Business Visa - single entry .
(2) Yes , this decree has 5 revisions up to now (last one in Jan2012 , as far as I know) . But none of them modified the Article 47 .
(3) I think the person was referring to the new Law no.6 - year 2011 , which has not modified this subject .
(4) What I know is that the "Social Cultural Visa - single entry" was index 421 (according to my visa from Apr 2006) .
(5) The Decree you mentioned above (KEPUTUSAN MENTERI KEHAKIMAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA NOMOR M.02-IZ.01.10 TAHUN 1995 , revised up to Jan 2012) has no reference to this Tourist Visa conversion into Social Cultural Visa .
(6) In my opinion there is no better explanation than that immigration mistakenly considering a Tourist Visa as a Social Cultural Visa - single entry , because they look like exactly the same when the sponsor's name is not printed in the Social Cultural Visa .
Those who extended a Tourist Visa without a sponsor maybe did it through an agent and didn't know that the agent got a sponsor for them .
So the only issue which is not clear yet, is the Visa (re)coding and its consequences.
As clarification; some say that since all these 'Visit Visa' have become type 211, there is no difference anymore in how immigration treats extensions etc. So following that rationale, a SosBud would almost be useless (unless you plan to get a KITAS on the trip but even that would be questionable).
So there is still some ambiguity. An anthology from different travel websites:
This is a result of a simplification of the visa coding a few years ago, which made sos-bud, 60-day business and "tourist" visas all, essentially the same thing. For immigration purposes all are "visit visas".
You will be able to use and extend the tourist version in exactly the same way once you arrive in Indonesia.
A 60-day "tourist visa" does exist, and its coding is indeed 211. The "B" no longer appears on the visa.
The word "tourist" is not printed on the visa, and it is, in fact, the same visa as a "sos-bud" or "business" visa - except for the fact that it requires no initial sponsor.
This is actually something of an anomaly, the result of a simplification of the visa coding a few years back, bringing the various 60-day visas on offer under a single code.
The issue of sponsorship is something of a grey area however. In my experience they do expect you to have a sponsor. However, some people have reported extending without a sponsor, having argued that as there was no initial sponsor they had no need for one.
The second grey area about these "tourist" visas is future extensions - you can extend them, just like a sos-bud, up to four times. The question is whether or not you are tied to the same sponsor for all extensions (as you should be for extensions of sos-bud visas). In practice lots of people have extended a "tourist" visa more than once in different places with different sponsors (I've done so myself on one occasion).
(a) So the only issue which is not clear yet, is the Visa (re)coding and its consequences.
(b) As clarification; some say that since all these 'Visit Visa' have become type 211, there is no difference anymore in how immigration treats extensions etc. So following that rationale, a SosBud would almost be useless (unless you plan to get a KITAS on the trip but even that would be questionable).
(a) Considering that the new Law no.6 - year 2011 didn't modified this subject , and the above mentioned Minister's Decree from 1995 had 5 revisions up to Jan 2012 but none of them modified the articles related to "Visit Visa - single entry" (Articles : 10 through 14 , and 46 through 50) , I don't think any change about the visa index number can be relevant . Supposing that it changed in 2006 , in practice , for users of Social Cultural Visa , this index number change didn't have any significant consequence as I used the visa from 2000 until 2009 without noticing anything different .
(b) The regulation is very clear as it states that the "Visit Visa - Tourist" cannot be extended . So if immigration detects Tourist Visa is being extended :
(i) It is possible that all Indonesian Embassies will start printing the sponsor's name on the Social Cultural and Business Visas , so it would be a clear differentiation between them ,
(ii) It is possible they make another change in the index number (or other no./letter) to differentiate the different Visit Visas ,
(iii) Or , better for us , it is possible that the Embassies stop requiring the sponsor's letter for Social Cultural and Business Visas . The sponsor would be required only if the foreigner wants to extend one of them , or ...
There are several kind of visas and permits. Among them you will find the visa/izin kunjungan (which a sosial budaya/sosbud is part of), as defined by the 1992 and 2011 Immigration Act (UU 9/1992 tentang keimigrasian which has been abrogated on May 2011 by UU 6/2011 tentang keimigrasian). Immigration Act (Undang Undang tentang keimigrasian) is the top of the pyramid of regulations and it requires further peraturan pelaksanaan (implementing regulations), which are called Peraturan Pemerintah, and which allow the implementation of the immigration act and go in further detail. These Peraturan Pemerintah also require further guidelines which are called Peraturan Menteri (Ministerial Regulation). Again, in order to further elaborate the procedure these Peraturan Menteri (and also sometimes the Peraturan Pemerintah) have specific guidelines elaborated in the Direktorat Jenderal Imigrasi. These decrees have been known as Keputusan DitJenIm or Peraturan DitJenIm or Petunjuk pelaksanaan. They are close to the bottom of the pyramid, they regulate the day-to-day procedures and obviously can not contradict or supercede a PerMen, a PP or an UU. The real bottom are the surat ederan, several of which being enacted every month. They just clarify points made in the other regulation (ex: background color of pictures, number of copies of documents to be requested...etc)
In short, the hierachy of immigration regulations from the top to bottom would be:
Undang Undang RI tentang keimigrasian
Peraturan Pemerintah RI
Peraturan menteri Hukum dan HAM
Peraturan Direktorat Jenderal Imigrasi or Keputusan Direktorat Jenderal Imigrasi or Petunjuk Pelaksanaan Direktorat Jenderal Imigrasi
Surat Ederan Direktur Intaltuskim/Nyiddakim/sisinfokim...etc
As you see it forms a pyramid or a cascade of regulations and obviously a regulation of lesser rank can not contradict a regulation of upper rank (this has been a constant in Indonesian law system and has been reaffirmed over the years in UU 10/2004 -now abrogated- and UU 11/2011 tentang pembentukan peraturan perundang undangan). In short a decree from Ditjenim can NOT authorise something which would be forbiden by a regulation of a upper rank, like a Peraturan Menteri or a Peraturan Pemerintah.
The peraturan pelaksanaan of UU 9/1992 were PP 32/1994 (amended twice and still prevailing to date snce we still don't have a new set of implementing regulations for UU 6/2011) and the Peraturan Menteri nomor M.02-IZ.01.10 tahun 1995 (amended five times and still valid to date). As Jstar rightly noted, pasal 47 ayat (1) of the latter stipulates that an izin kunjungan wisata (tourist permit) can NOT be extended. So far, this article has never been amended, is still prevailing and for a izin kunjungan wisata to be legally extended would require a regulation of similar or upper rank to be enacted, authorising a izin kunjungan wisata to become an izin kunjungan sosial budaya or usaha or pemerintahan. Also no regulations authorise a conversion of an izin kunjungan wisata in any other type of izin kunjungan. Regulations authorize the conversion of an izin kunjungan in an izin tinggal terbatas or the conversion of an izin tinggal terbatas in an izin tinggal tetap but no stipulaions authorise a conversion of status in between izin kunjungan. The bottom rule is: you exit the country and apply for a new visa. This is the legal way to do it.
Concerning "In 2006 the SosBud and Tourist Visa both got the code 211 and so they are the same":
From 11992 to 2006 the izin kunjungan were given an incredible number of indexes and it was real pain in the bum for atase imigrasi to differentiate all the indexes and source of many mistakes. I can't remember at the moment how many exactly there were, but a few dozens come to mind. These kind of details are fixed by a decree of the DitJenIm, in accordance to the regulations of upper rank such as UU, PP and PerMen. In april 2006, Imam Santoso, the then Direktur Jenderal Imigrasi enacted the Peraturan DitJenIm nomor F-434.IZ.01.10 which reduces the number of visa index to "only" 13 kind (1 index for the visa singgah/transit visa, 3 indexes for the visa kunjungan/visit visa and 9 indexes for the visa tinggal terbatas/short stay visa). From april 2006 any visa kunjungan for a single entry became index 211. Though it simplifies the administration of these visas, it doesn't allow to clearly make the difference in between the 4 sorts of visa kunjungan (wisata, usaha, sosial budaya and pemerintahan). This is where the problem lie. The Peraturan DitJenIm nomor F-434.IZ.01.10 has never stipulated that all visa kunjungan should be treated the same (the peraturan even reaffirm the difference in between them) and anyway, a Peraturan DitJenIM can NOT contradict a PerMen as I stated before.
In the various kanim in the archipelago, due to the lack of socialisation of the 2006 Peraturan DitJenIm, due to lack of motivation and due to the lack of understanding of law matters (if you ask any petugas about the hierarchy of law, be ready for a surprising answer), petugas have just interepreted it as "now they have the same index, therefore we can treat it the same way". This is legally wrong and, as per Peraturan Menteri nomor M.02-IZ.01.10 tahun 1995 stipulates an izin kunjungan which has been given for tourism purpose should not be converted nor extended.
Concerning "This law has been changed in 2011":
It is mixing oranges and apples. UU 6/2011 is an Immigration Act, the top of the pyramid. it's purpose is NOT to go in such details as what type of izin kunjungan should or should not be extended. It will be the purpose of the new set of peraturan pelaksanaan which will be implemented sadiki ley as we are used to say in bahasa manado (it can mean "soon", "in a week", "in a year" or "give me a break with your questions for which I have no precise answer to give"). At the moment, the prevailing regulation on the matter is still Peraturan Menteri nomor M.02-IZ.01.10 tahun 1995 corrected by its five amendments.
Concerning: "An agent can convert the Tourist Visa to a SosBud while you're in RI."
This argument has no legal basis. An agent, being a middle man, is in an ideal position to bribe any immigration officer who would question the extension but that's pretty much it.
As jstar pointed, this is the foreigner who will be in a mess if things turn wrong. When a foreigner is involved with the justice, for whatever reason, the first thing which is scrutinized is his/her immigration status. With an izin kunjungan wisata which would have been extended as an izin kunjungan sosial budaya you don't get a good start should you have to deal with the indonesian justice.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2016 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.