Farmers in Indonesia become porters on the ground of his own former because the narrowing of agricultural land due to provisions concerning the leasing of land is regulated in the Law on the Protection of Farmers. It is delivered by the Professor of Agricultural Law UB Ahmad Sodiki when becomes Applicant’s Expert in reviewing Law Number 19 Year 2013 on the Protection and Empowerment of Farmers (Farmer Protection Act) on Thursday (13/2) at the Plenary Court. Lawsuit filed by the Indonesian Farmers Union (SPI), Indonesian Peasant Alliance (API), and the Indonesian Environmental Forum (WALHI).

Suffering farmers are because of the Act. The government promises of land reform by dividing the wastelands plus to farmers. Sodiki disclose the amount of the Promised Land is also fairly fantastic, i.e., 8.7 to 11 million hectares. “But in reality, the state cannot simply give the land to the owners of big capital, but stingy on small farmers," he said.

Agricultural land lease provisions contained in the Farmer Protection Act, according to Sodiki should be removed. Article 59 Law on the Protection of Farmers actually revives the practice of leasing the land in the days of the Dutch East Indies was potentially detrimental to farmers. “This could squeeze the farmers and not to provide legal certainty," he added.

In the trial, the government presented several witnesses who testified that the absence of constitutional damages suffered due to the Farmer Protection Act. Chairman of Farmers Group, Gili Raharja, Sukabumi, Maman Suparman, states with farmer groups set forth in Farmer Protection Act impact the development and production of income by farmers. “Farmers Group has together and be united in a common resolve the conflict," he said.

Petitioner argues felt disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 59 of the Act Protection and Empowerment of Farmers, particularly the phrase “rental rights, exploitation permit, license management, or permits. According to the Petitioners, the phrase is contrary to Article 33 paragraph (2) of the Constitution of 1945. Therefore, the Applicant considers lease rights can be interpreted smallholder farmers who pay rent to the state it was in violation of the terms of the principle of the right of control of the state. Supposedly, the state does not have such a claim, but the state should only formulate policy, do the settings, perform the maintenance, managing, and monitoring.

In addition, the Petitioners also assume that Article 59 of Law quo along the same phrase is inconsistent with Article 28d paragraph (1) of the Constitution of 1945. The petitioners argued that Article 44 and Article 45 of Law No. 5 of 1960 on Basic Regulation Agrarian Principles governing the rights have the right to use the special properties of its own called. Rights reserved for only true rental buildings, while the lease of agricultural land has only temporary nature. (Lulu Anjarsari / mh )