Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman on case No. 45/PUU-IX/2011, Wednesday (10/8)

Provisions in Act No. 41/1999 on Forestry, particularly Article 1 number 3, have potential to harm the constitutional rights of communities and Local Governments (LGs) Kapuas District, Central Kalimantan. Proprietary material and all government facilities are potentially ‘taken’ by the state. "Since it is considered to be in the forest," said Agus Surono, one of Petitioner’s attorneys in preliminary hearing of case No. 45/PUU-IX/2011 Wednesday (10 / 8) in the courtroom of the Constitutional Court Panel.

Moreover, he argues, such provision shall not guarantee protection and legal certainty of the Petitioners. "The right of the applicant’s constitutional guarantee of the recognition, protection and fair legal certainty in the law of nations, particularly those involving criminal proceedings become uncertain due to the applicant at any time can be imprisoned if the provisions of Article 1 number 3 of the Forestry Law is still a reference, "he explained.

As a result of that provision, the assets of the area and other facilities declared as forest area. When in fact, he said, the locations in Kapuas District is not a forest.

It resulted in Petitioner I, Muhammad Mawardi, as Regent of the Kapuas district, cannot develop the potential of the area because the entire area designated as forest area. "The central government can arbitrarily declare the status of forests in the region," said Agus. Mawardi addition, there are six other applicant, namely Hambit Bintih, Duwel Rawing, Alkim Zain, Ahmad Dirman, and Akhmad Taufik. They act as individuals.

Agus also argues, there inconsistencies between chapters in the Forestry Law. "Article 1 number 3 is inconsistent with Article 14 and Article 15 of Forestry Law," he said.

Finally, the petition asked the Court to declare does not apply Article 1 no. 3 of Act on forestry along the phrase "... designated and or ...” As for the article in its entirety reads, "The forest is designated and specific area or set by the government to maintain its existence as a permanent forest."

At least, according to Petitioner, that article contrary to Article 1 paragraph (3); Article 18 paragraph (2) and (5), Article 18A Paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1); Article 28G Paragraph (1); as well as Article 28H Paragraph (1) and (4) Act of 1945.

Before concluding the hearing, as usual, the Panel gave some suggestions related to the petition. One panel member, Judge of the Constitutional Anwar Usman, remind, the Applicant needs to re-examine where the correct formulation of the Forestry Act. Because, he says, there is a difference between the Forestry Act that is attached by the applicant with the Forestry Act in the State Secretariat website. These differences are related to numbering. Where, Forestry Act version of the State Secretariat, c written letter, not number 3 as the Forestry Act that are attached by the Petitioner. The judge panel is chaired by Judge Mohammed Alim, accompanied by the Constitutional Court as a member of the Constitutional Harjono. (Dodi / mh/Yazid.tr)