---

Reviewing the fifth session of the Act No. 2/2012 on Land Procurement for Development to the Public Interest, held in Thursday (30/8) at the Plenary Session, 2nd floor, the Constitutional Court (MK). The trial, led by Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Achmad Sodiki to heard the testimony of experts and witnesses of the Applicant Party. In the statement, the applicant who is an expert researcher and Director of the Agrarian Resource Center (ARC), Dianto Bachriadi expressed Land Acquisition Act for the Development of the Public Interest has a lot of drawbacks.

Starting his presentation, Dianto explained the word "development" in Law 2/2012. In the perspective of Human Rights (HAM), the construction can be defined as a systematic process that the state's obligation to promote and develop the level or degree of human life and its citizens or citizens equitably. "So when we talk of development, we are not just talking physical problem, we are not just talking the economy. But we speak of social issues, we are talking the culture, and so on. Including also the issue of how values and human dignity in their lives could be better, more improved. In this case the construction is the right means, the right of every citizen, rights of citizens," explained Dianto the definition of development.

However, further Dianto, in conducting development aimed at improving the living standards of citizens, the state must not violate the right to be treated fairly. In addition, it is in the development process right to engage citizens in every process. "From the point of view of Law No. 12 of 2012 as a whole, as a whole, I conclude that the law has not reflected the rights principles and obligations of citizens in the development process that is fair," added Dianto.

Strengthening his argument, Dianto convey indications of the absence of accommodating citizen's rights in development. First, the word "development" in this law refers to more infrastructure construction activity. In fact, the development has a broad sense, not just about the physical.

The second indication is, in law petitioned for by the applicant is not found unequivocal explanation to prevent the emergence of potential discrimination. "If development is right and he should be executed in a fair, then this law I say have the potential discrimination and injustice, access precisely, the physical facilities are categorized as 'public interest' was," said Dianto.

Moreover, in this Act referred to as "public interest" is not clear what shape the form of projects or infrastructure developments involving private parties or not. In fact, if it involves the private sector there is investment made by private parties intended to have a profit-oriented or profit-oriented.

Dianto did not forget to give concrete examples of the argument. He likens the construction of toll roads that are often interpreted as the development of public interest and often do land evictions. In fact, when the highway existed, not all people can use or can be said to be discriminatory. Therefore, not all residents could access road that was willing to pay to access.

Witness Testimony

In addition to presenting Dianto as an expert, the Petitioner also presented three witnesses in the trial this time. One witness who delivered his statement is namely Ahmad Tomini, a fisherman in the Village Kalibaru, North Jakarta.

Tomini said that his livelihood as fishermen in coastal areas was disturbed by the construction of the Port of Indonesia II (Pelindo II). "Fishermen can now no longer go to sea due to the construction because the construction IPC IPC II II disrupting the small fishermen Kalibaru to fish," said Tomini who claimed to have 30 years of living in Kalibaru.

In addition to erosion, sewage project also resulted in difficulties Kalibaru fishermen fishing on the coast. As for the fishing to sea it was not possible because they are just a small fishing boat. If previous earnings they could reach fifty thousand dollars per day, now to get ten thousand dollars per day is difficult. Subsequent impacts, many children drop out of school Kalibaru fishermen because their parents cannot afford school anymore.

Tomini also ensure that for one year the project was done, not one person from the IPC II came to see state residents Kalibaru. The government and the IPC II did not socialize first before the project was held.

Still not satisfied, The applicant plans to ask the expert again on the next trial. Sodiki delivered the next session scheduled to be held on Tuesday (11/9), at 11. 00 pm. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh/Yazid.tr)

---