Review Trial of Act 2/2012 about Land Procurement for Public Interest Development-case number 42/PUU-XII/2014- held in Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday (14/7) afternoon. The agenda is to comprise Pleading revision.

“We cite that in the revision we’ve attached petitum revision. We’ve changed as Your Majesty has advised,” Soetopo Ronodiharjo, as the Plaintiff, said  

“Your Majesty, if appraisal, NJOP, and any other things are not trustable and can’t be used as tools to measure how much the compensation will be? As you’ve advised I’m not mistaken,” Soetopo said.

To the event, Soetopo wants to deliver several vulnerable problems to be adjusted to people’s term. Simile to fragile foundation, the building will be vulnerable as well.

“We consider to use old ways, as well as revealed in Perpres 36/2005 Article 1 letter 11 which says, “Compensation is change to a physical and non-physical loss of land procurement to land, building, plants and/or other materials owners related to the land of which may develop for a better living in social-economic matters preceding land procurement,” Soetopo said.

The definition, according to the Applicant, is much clear rather than UU 2/2012’s definition. Latter definition is vulnerable to multi-interpretation and smears law uncertainty.(Nano Tresna Arfana/mh/kun)