---

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a trial court verdict on judicial review of Act 2/2012 on Land Procurement for Development in the Public Interest, Wednesday (13/2). Court stated in its decision rejected the injunction request of the Petitioners for all. In conclusion the decision of the Court described as the principal reason for the refusal is groundless petition of the Petitioners law.

 

"The verdict, claimed to reject the petition of the Petitioners for the whole," said Chairman of the Plenary Session which is also Deputy Chief Justice Ahmad Sodiki.

 

Court considers the principal petition stating that Article 9 paragraph (1) of Law 2/2012 does not define clearly understanding development interests and the interests of society, unwarranted by law. In consideration of the legal decision of the Court explained that if the norm of Article 9, paragraph (1) of Law 2/2012 declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no binding legal force, it is no longer a balance between development interests and the interests of society. That is, the law is still under consideration of the Court, if it has the name of public interest, the interests of the development of the reference, then the public interest is no longer noticed. Such a case it would be contrary to the principles of constitutional justice.

 

Court considers that it is possible if in a statute does not provide details regarding the terms or words used, although it can lead to ambiguity, uncertainty over the terms or words are intended by law. However, it is still the opinion of the Court; it can be overcome by issuing regulations to elaborate lower while in the spirit of protection of various interests.

 

Another proposition deemed unreasonable by the Court of law, the argument of the applicant stating Article 10 letter b and d of Law 2/2012 has the meaning unclear development interest and the interests of society and thus to balance the public interest in this article lists the law is unclear . The applicant considers that the public interest is a question for the many that need the protection of the state so that construction of the highway in question Applicants deemed not includes activities for the public interest. In addition to the toll road, the Petitioners also see the construction of container adverse Petitioners are not public enemy interest category in accordance with Article 10 letter b and d of the Act.

 

In this regard, the Court found that the highway construction made for smooth transportation of people, goods, and services into lives of many people.

Court explained that for certain areas, the distribution of nine basic (staple food) is only possible through the port.

Still related to the category of public interest, and compliance by the state, the Court considered that not all of the facilities to the public interest can be met by the state because of the need and the demand is increasing. Therefore, although the country provide opportunities for the private sector to participate in the interest of the public, the state continues to determine the policies relevant to the public interest, for example in setting tariffs roads managed by the private sector, so the private sector cannot fully determine its own rates which is a toll road investment is concerned.

 

Besides the two principal issue fourteen of which the Petitioner, the Indonesian Human Rights Committee for Social Justice (IHCS), and the Indonesian Farmers Union (SPI), the Court rejected the entire principal petition stating Petitioner unreasonable law. (Yusti Nurul Agustin / mh)

---