Attorneys of the Petitioners Wahyudi Djafar (left) and Wahyu Wagiman (right) in the hearing for the judicial review on Article 21 in conjunction with Article 47 paragraph (1) and (2) of Law No. 18 Year 2004 about Plantation, Jakarta (1/10).
Jakarta, MKOnline – The phrase “other acts causing interruption to the plantation business” is unclear and has been used (or at least is potentially used) arbitrarily by law enforcement apparatuses. This was stated by the Attorney of the Petitioner in case number 55/PUU-VIII/2010, Wahyu Djafar, on Monday (1/11) in the Plenary session room of the Constitutional Court.
The aforementioned case is related to the judicial review of Article 21 jo Article 47 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law No. 18 Year 2004 regarding Plantation. The aforementioned article fully reads as follows, “Every person shall be prohibited from doing any act causing damage to the field and/or other assets, using plantation land without permit and/or doing any other acts causing interruption to the plantation business.”
According to the Petitioners, they had made the revision according to the suggestion and inputs given by the Panel of Justices in the previous hearing on Tuesday (12/10). The Petitioners’ attorney conveyed that revision had been made to two aspects namely, first, in relation to the identity or legal standing of the Petitioners and second, the grounds of the petition. “Petitioners I, III and IV are Indonesian citizens having land close to the plantation area. Meanwhile, Petitioner II is the Secretary General of the Archipelago Customary Community Alliance or Aliansi Masyarakat Adat Nusantara of Ketapang Regency, West Kalimantan,” described one of the Petitioners’ attorneys, Wahyu.
Meanwhile, in relation to the grounds of petition, the Petitioners conveyed that in addition to having the potential to be misused, the aforementioned phrase has also violated the rule of law state principles. According to Wahyudi, in a rule of law state, at least three principles must materialize namely legal certainty, benefit, and generality (generally applicable). And even if there are contradictions in the implementation, continued Wahyudi, they should run simultaneously from one principle to another.
The phrase ‘any other acts causing interruption to the plantation business’, according to Wahyudi, does not meet the elements or principles of the rule of law state simultaneously. “It (read: the aforementioned formulation) only follows the principle of generality,” confirmed Wahyudi, “it does not fulfill the principles of predictability, transparency, and legality.”
After hearing the explanation of the attorneys of the Petitioners, the Panel of Justices asked several questions and presented considerations which the Petitioners needed to pay attention to in their petition. The Chairperson of the Panel of Justices Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi as well as Panel Member Achmad Sodiki, conveyed that the Petitioners need to confirm and clarify their arguments. In particular, in relation to the formulation of the reviewed article along with its elucidation. In addition, Fadlil also questioned the petitioned which was not signed by some attorneys of the Petitioners. “This is important, so pleas pay attention to it,” he asserted. (Dodi/mh)
Tuesday, November 02, 2010 | 06:10 WIB 257