The government explained that it Cultivation System Act to accommodate the needs of farmers in the development of plant cultivation. With this arrangement, farmers have become central role in managing the strategic cultivation. "Development of cultivation can be done optimally by using appropriate technology as specified in the Act a quo," said the representative of the Government.

The Government also revealed the existence of this law the government actually promotes research to develop crops to help farmers. In addition, governments in developing programs involving the cultivation remained with the law with respect to the targeted community. "The government never banned the farmers to develop a particular commodity, if the government actually failed to change. Regarding the provision of plasmanutfah, the Government invited the public in order to secure and cultivated plasmanutfah comply with the terms of legislation and regulations. Act a quo had to accommodate, if there is a violation of criminal sanctions for granted got to give a deterrent effect to the perpetrators, "he said.

In the hearing, Petitioner presented several witnesses, one of whom Dayat of farmer groups. According to Dayat, the hybrid program of the Government had a negative impact on farmers. In a statement, showing comparison of soil samples using organic fertilizer with the use of chemical fertilizers. . "Hybrid programs always include government-owned chemical fertilizers pesticides with an impact for farmers in their field. The impact to land using chemical fertilizers, made the land so sticky. Farmers were so hard to cultivate the land. In addition, the soil becomes dry quickly so scrambling water. Land became difficult to breed. The organic soil absorbs more air than soil chemistry. With the use of chemical fertilizers, it makes farmers miserable," he explained.

This was raised in the trial continued testing of Law 12 of 1992 On Cultivation System held back the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (4/12). Registrar of the Court registered the application with a number 99/PUU-X/2012. Recorded several NGOs working in agriculture had volunteered as a Petitioner in the case, namely Indonesian Human Rights Committee For Social Justice (IHCS), Farmer Initiatives for Ecological Livelihoods and Democracy (FIELD), in this case represented by Widyastama Cahyana, Farmers Alliance Indonesia (API), Yayasan Bina Desa Sadajiwa (Bina Desa), the People’s Coalition on Food Sovereignty (KRKP), Integrated Pest Management Farmers Association of Indonesia (IPPHTI), Farmers Union Oil Palm (SPKS), Association of Oil Watch, the Indonesian Farmers Union (SPI) Alliance of Agrarian Reform Movement (AGRA), who works as a farmer Kunoto Plant breeders and Karsinah who worked as farmers.

 The Petitioner in his petition argued that their constitutional rights have been violated by the enactment of Article 5 paragraph (1) letter a, b, c, d; Article 6; Article 9 paragraph (3), Article 12 paragraph (1) and (2), Article 60 paragraph (1) letter a and b, as well as Article 60 paragraph (2) point a and point b. According to the Petitioners, the research agenda to find new seeds do not involve farmers as subjects without considering the interests of farmers. The study comes just on the business alone. The seeds farmers only used as a source of research without taking into account the contribution of farmers to the diversity of agricultural seeds that already exist. Farmers’ knowledge and creativity in plant breeding will die from development activities, the search and collection of agricultural genetic resources to get permission. While farmers as individuals equated with seed companies to obtain permits, in reality only company that can get permission. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh)