Minister of Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia through the Decree No. 70/Kpts-II/2001 have committed irregularities which led to legal uncertainty. It is delivered Panca Astawa when a petition in the trial testing Expert Law Number 41 Year 1999 on Forestry (Forestry Law) on Tuesday (4 / 10), in Room Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court (MK). This case with No. 45/PUU-IX/2011 filed by Muhammad Mawardi, Hambit Bintih, Duwel Rawing, Zain Alkim, Ahmad Dirman and Akhmad Taufik. 

"It should be affirmation of the forest area conducted by the Government, not the Minister of Forestry. Government is the Central Government. Central Government, in this case, is the President who holds the power. Deviations by the Minister of Forestry through a decree that I mentioned above led to legal uncertainty, "explained Panca before the Council of Judges, chaired by the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Moh. Mahfud MD. 

Panca also stated Article 1 Point (3) contrary to the 1945 Constitution. According to the Panca, Article 14 and Article 15 of Forestry Law, the inaugural forest area should be carried out in four stages. "There were four stages set forth in Article 14 and Article 15 of Forestry Law as the inaugural activities of the forest area, namely the designation of forest areas, forest boundary, forest mapping, and determination of forest areas. However, Article 1 point (3) of the Forestry Law states, ‘the forest is designated and specific area or set by the government to maintain its existence as a permanent forest’. This has led to uncertainty and violates the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples, "he explained. 

In the trial listening to experts and witnesses petition, the Petitioner presented two witnesses who gave testimony of Article 1 paragraph (3) of forest have been detrimental to the constitutional rights of indigenous peoples in Central Kalimantan. According to one witness, the decision of the Government through the Minister of Forestry No. 70/Kpts-II/2001 conflicts between indigenous peoples with the Regional Government of Central Kalimantan. "The government only did the appointment without any region restrictions. This has led to conflicts in land use that led to the defeat and loss of indigenous people’s constitutionally. Uncertainty result of Article 1 No. 3 of the Forestry Law is hard to give our consent to the public good for agriculture, plantation, fishery until it can get criminal sanctions, "said the witness by the Petitioner. 

In the main petition, Petitioner argues that the provisions of Article 1 number 3 of the Forestry Act contrary to several provisions contained in the Constitution of 1945, namely Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 18 paragraph (2), Article 18 paragraph (5), Article 18 paragraph (6), Article 18A Paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28G Paragraph (1), Article 28H Paragraph (1), Article 28H Paragraph (4) of the Constitution of 1945. According to the Petitioner, the assets of the Petitioners and other facilities built since 1950, later declared as forest area as a result of Article 1 number 3 of the Forestry Law did not cause the applicant could develop the potential of the area. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh/Yazid.tr)