The trial continued against the testing of Act No. 2 of 2012 on Land Procurement for Development in the Public Interest was held back by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (2/8) at the Plenary Court Room. This case the number 50/PUU-X/2012 filed by several nongovernmental organizations, among them the Indonesian Human Rights Committee dor Social Justice (IHCS), Indonesia Peasant Union (ISU), Yayasan Bina Desa Sadajiwa (Bina Desa), the Consortium for Agrarian reform (KPA), the People's Coalition for Justice Fisheries (KIARA), Indonesia Forum for Environment (WALHI), Farmers Alliance Indonesia (API), Oil Watch, People's Coalition for the Right to Water (KruHA), Women's Solidarity Union, ELSAM, and others.

In the courtroom listening to testimony and the Government and the Expert Witness Applicant, the Government argued that the petition is not related to the issue of constitutionality of the norms of Article 14 and Article 21 paragraph (1) of a quo. According to the Government, the provisions of the Act has been in accordance with the mandate contained in the 1945 Constitution, especially Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (4). "Act a quo has been placed in such a way that all parties are given the same legal status and given the right to speak. The process of dialogue and communication in the procurement of public consultation for the development of common ground are between the parties to reach an agreement for joint development. Request is not related to the issue of the constitutionality of the enforceability of the tested norms," he said.

While experts Applicant Hendry Thomas said the law has been monopolizing the development is not only about the existing legislation. According to Hendry, with the Presidential Decree No. 35/2005 and No. 65/2006 on land acquisition only interpret as an investment and construction of structural development only. "The government will increase the power by this Act. Yet this is a problem between the central and local governments. Should be put forward is transparency, not to add power, "he explained.

Meanwhile, Andrianov other applicant who is an expert who tested the law reveals bias and only benefits the interests of certain parties. "Law bias the interests of certain parties, be it the government is close to the businessman, who clearly benefits employers and further harm the public interest," he explained.

In the main petition, the petitioners argued that Article 9, Article 14 and Article 21 of the Act gave rise to legal uncertainty, because the government as the implementing legislation can be said unilateral land acquisition was balanced between the interests of community development with the interests of legal certainty when fair is a constitutional right protected by Article 28 D (1) of the 1945 Constitution. This resulted in legal uncertainty equal treatment before the law are protected by Article 28 D (1) and Article 1 (1) of the 1945 Constitution is blocked because of efforts to balance the interests in land acquisition can be done unilaterally by the implementing legislation. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/Yazid.tr)