Attorney applicant, Tedi Turangga giving Judicial Improvements for the Application Case of Act of Forestry, Tuesday (13 / 9)

Applicant of the case 45/PUU-IX/2011have improved the petition on the advice of the Panel. It recognized by one of the power of the Petitioner, on Tuesday (13 / 9) morning, at the Plenary Court courtroom. "It’s no improvement," he said responding to questions from the Panel Chairman, Constitutional Court Justice Muhammad Alim. 

In a previous hearing, the Petitioner revealed, it has been harmed by the effect of Article 1 paragraph 3 of Law No. 41/1999 on Forestry. According to him, the article has been potentially detrimental to the constitutional rights of the people and Government of Kapuas District, Central Kalimantan. Therefore, material property and government facilities throughout the region were potentially ‘taken’ by the state. 

"Since it is considered to be in the forest," said Agus Surono, one of Petitioner’s attorney in a preliminary hearing on 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, assets and other facility areas 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, can not 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. 

In addition, Agus also argue, 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. 

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) of the Constitution of 1945. (Dodi/mh/Yazid.tr)