---

The Mahkamah Konstitusi (the Court) held a hearinf for Case No. 21/PUU-V/2007 concerning judicial review of Law No. 25 Year 2007 concerning tentang Capital Investment (the Investment Law) against the 1945 Constitution, on Wednesday (5/9), at the courtroom of the Court scheduled for Examination of the Revised Petition.

 

The petition which was originally filed by eleven institutions but there were now ten institutions, among others, the Indonesian Legal Aid and Human Rights Association (PBHI), the Labor Union of Jabotabek/Greater jakarta Federation (FSBJ), Indonesian Farmers Alliance (API), Bina Desa Sadajiwa Foundation (YBDS), Women’s Solidarity Union (PSP), Indonesian Farmers Union Federation (FSPI), Indonesian Forum for the Environment Foundation (WALHI), the Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA), Indonesian Human Right Voices (SHMI), and Association for the Advocacy of Women in Small Businesses (ASPPUK).

 

In explaining about their petition, the Petitioners, represented by their Attorneys-In-Fact Ecoline Situmorang, S.H. cs., stated that through the Investment Law, various privileges have been made available for inviting investments, from various tax facilities, the grant of Right of Use (HGU) for 95 years at once, free flow of capital, as well as freedom from the issue of nationalization. Meanwhile, the externality costs of investment, among others thousands of land-related conflicts, Human Rights violations, environment destruction, and impoverishment which have been going on thus far, have not been made as a reference for the drafting of the Investment Law by the Government and the People’s Legislative Assembly of the Republic of Indonesia (DPR RI).

 

In the Investment Law, added the Petitioners, investment as the support for development understood as the economic process merely oriented to economic growth, asi sebagai penopang pembangunan yang dimaknai sebagai proses ekonomi dengan pertumbuhan ekonomi semata, bears many shortcomings as it ignores fair distribution of income so as to widen the gap between the rich and the poor. On the other hand, the majority of Indonesian people are still poor and unable to have access to natural resources, health services, education as well as other public services. Such matters, according to the Petitioners, have betrayed the goal of the national economic development that relies on the democratic values or the Economy based of the Pancasila.

 

With respect to the petition, the Panel of Justices corrected the statement of claims (petitum) of the Petitioners which requested the Panel of Constitutional Court Justices to declare Article 3 Sub-Article d, Article 4 Sub-Article a, Article 8, Article 18 Sub-Article (4) and Article 22 of the Investment Law contrary to Article 33 Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3), Article 27 Paragraph (2), Article 28A and Article 28C of the 1945 Constitution, as well as to declare such articles as having no binding legal effect.

 

With such corrections, many fatal and fundamental errors became known to have been made by the Petitioners, some of which being among others, it should not have been Article 3 Sub-Article d as it was Article 3 Paragraph (1) Sub-Paragraph d which had been intended, not Article 4 Sub-Article a as it should have been Article 4 Paragraph (1) Sub-Paragraph a. “Your (the Petitioners’) petition is obscuur (unclear-ed.),” stated Member Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, S.H., M.H.

 

Therefore, Palguna gave two options for the Petitioners namely either to make a renvooi (corrections in that place) since the time frame given for the revision, or to withdraw the petition. “If you want to make any correction, do it now by specifically mentioning what you request. If it is impossible, you may withdraw this petition,” asserted Palguna.

 

With respect to the Petitioner’s petition being obscure, the Chairman of the Panel of Justices Dr. H. Harjono, S.H., MCL. gave a chance for the Petitioners to revise their petition up to the end of the working hours of the Constitutional Court that day. (Wiwik Budi Wasito)

---