THE PLTP LAW IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE 1945 CONSTITUTION
Image


The Constitutional Court (the Court) rejected the petition for Judicial Review of Law No. 56 PRP Year 1960 concerning Stipulation of Farmland Measurement (the PLTP Law) on Thursday, September 20, 2007 at the Plenary Meeting Room on the 2nd Floor of the Constitutional Court Building at Jl. Medan Merdeka Barat No. 6, Central Jakarta. In the conclusion of its decision, the Court states that Article 10 Paragraph (3) and Paragraph (4) of Law 56/1960 has been in line with the provisions of the Agrarian Law, and therefore it is not contrary to Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 28H Paragraph (4), and Article 28I Paragraph (2) the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Petitioner’s petition is groundless and must be rejected.

                            

In its legal considerations, the Court explains that the provisions of the a quo law has in fact provided clear rules or legal certainty (rechtszekerheid) in the context of land title reform (landreform) particularly farmland so that the mandate of Article 33 Paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution as further elaborated in the Agrarian Law (particularly Article 7 and Article 17) can be realized in Law No. 56/1960 which reflects the social function of land and land titles.

 

Yusri Ardisoma as the Petitioner in the petition, as expressed in his petition, considers that Law No. 56 PRP Year 1960 particularly Article 10 Paragraph (3) which reads ”If the criminal act as intended in paragraph 1 sub-paragraph a of this article occurs, then such transfer of right shall be null and void whereas the land concerned shall belong to the State, without the right to claim for damages in any form whatsoever”; and Paragraph (4) which reads ”If the criminal act as intended in paragraph 1 sub-paragraph b of this article occurs, then except in the event as intended in article 7 paragraph (1) the land area in excess of the maximum measurement shall belong to the State where if such land is entirely owned by the convict and/or his family members, provided that he is given the opportunity to express his wish as to which part of land is to be imposed with the provision of this paragraph. With regard to the land which belongs to the State, there will not be any right to claim for damages in any form whatsoever”. Law No. 56/1960 has evidently contravened Article 28D Paragraph (1), Article 28H Paragraph (4) and Article 28I Paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution which provide that every person shall have the right to possess personal property rights and that such property rights shall not be taken over arbitrarily by anybody.

 

With respect to the Court’s Decision, three Constitutional Court Justices expressed their dissenting opinion, namely Maruarar Siahaan, Soedarsono, and Abdul Mukthie Fadjar. (Vien)
Thursday, September 20, 2007 | 13:28 WIB 228