Law No. 18 of 2012 on Food is not in favor of small farmers. This was disclosed by the Members of the Working Group of Experts on Food Security Council as an expert Khudori in the review case number 98/PUU-XII/2013.

“There are no provisions in the Food Law which regulates small farmers including those excluded by the corporation," he said before the session led by Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva on Wednesday (5/2) at the Plenary Court.

In the trial, explaining Khudori food sovereignty is the soul of a small farmer, not the industry. However, the Food Act actually siding with corporate. In addition, the Food Law no article regulating access to important resources in the production of food sovereignty, including land,water, seeds and financially. “Article 12 and Article 15A of the resource is set, but no mention of these resources to anyone. Precisely on the chapter, it appears that food becomes merchandise," he said.

In addition, the Food Act government sentris assessed Khudori is because most of the regulating authority in managing food both national and local government. “While society as a subject only mentioned food in five chapters," he said.

While other applicants expert, explains Hanim Luthfiyah Food Act raises the commercialization of food. Not only that, Luthfiyah also explains the Food Act regulates not much interest in building food security. “There are still many unanswered questions in the Food Act, such as the accessibility of the technology, the opinion of farmers, and others," he said.

There are a number of NGOs registered as an applicant in this case , the Indonesian Human Rights Committee For Social Justice ( IHCS ) , Indonesian Peasant Alliance ( API ) , the Indonesian Farmers Union (SPI), Agrarian Reform Consortium (KPA), of the Women’s Solidarity (SP), People’s Coalition for Food Sovereignty (KRKP), Society of Sawit Watch, Farmer Initiatives for Ecological Livelihoods and Democracy ( FIELD ) , Indonesian Environmental Forum (WALHI), Indonesia for Global Justice (The Institute), the People’s Coalition for Fisheries Justice (KIARA), and Rural Development Foundation Sadajiwa (BinaDesa). The petitioners questioned the procurement policy of food and agricultural products are arranged in six chapters on the role of each Article 3 , Article 36 paragraph ( 3 ) , Article 53 , Article 69 letter c , Article 77 paragraph ( 1 ) and paragraph ( 2 ) , as well as Article 133 .

According to the Petitioners, the provisions stipulated in these articles resulted in a loss of state protection against small -scale food entrepreneurs. The petitioners argued that the provision of food policy resulted in vagueness, especially with the policy of food and agricultural products imported by the government by reason of the lack of national food reserves. Furthermore, one of the Petitioner’s attorney,Beni Dikty Sinaga, said food imports prone to bribery policies only benefit businessmen and great food. The petitioners asked the Court that the six articles filed by the Applicant to be tested otherwise contrary to the constitution. (LuluAnjarsari / mh )