---

Association of Indonesian Regency Administrations (APKASI) filed three Acts simultaneously to Constitutional Court (MK). The three Acts are, Forestry Act, Local Government Act, and Spatial Planning Act. Preliminary trial of which was handled on Wednesday (9/3) at MK plenary room.

Yusril Ihza Mahendra, APKASI’s attorney, attended the Muhamad Alim-led trial. Yusril stated the Plaintiff pleads the central government authority in spatial and forestry planning.

APKASI said that forest management should be taken under regency administration authority instead of Jakarta’s supervision. Due the widespread archipelago, such specific must be closely monitored by local governments, which are located at exact sites. Centralistic envision will only lead into phantasm in executing spatial and forest plans, given that overwhelming agenda Jakarta is having.

Besides, most of the forests are situated thousand miles away from Jakarta. Regents are considered to be more susceptible to forests’ condition which is located in exactly his/her area, compared to President and Forestry Minister who spend most of their activities in the concrete jungle.  

Apart from it, Forestry Act also considered to bump Local Government Act (UU Pemda), as UU Pemda and Constitution 1945 say that Local Government is competent to govern its local area. Forestry Act also considered hindering the spirit of reformation, as the Article came into effect in the transition period, before the amendment of 1945 Constitution was completed.

It is considered irrelevant to nowadays situation, where regional autonomy have sparked local-wisdom-based development and seeing further local resources utilization. “Back then, no one talks about local government. However some developments are advancing, as limited responsibility is now split to be handled by both central and local governments,” Yusril said.   

Meanwhile, APKASI also expressed that Indonesia is a unitary state consisting of many islands and tribes. Thus, the plaintiff stated that centralistic government is no way finding a place for a settlement. Authorities given to the local government must convey proportional principle and legally certain.   

Moreover, Constitution has given a mandate for regional autonomy as determined in Article 33 verse (3), verse (4), and Article 18 verse (2) and (5). The Plaintiff also states that regional government must be given wide authorities to manage its spatial planning.

Nonetheless, the fact says differently, spatial planning regulation and ratification process spend too much time, due to the complicated requirement and overlapping competence between different-level governments.

Yusril also explained that Spatial Planning Act regulates all multi-level regulation about spatial planning must be completed within three years after the Act came into effect. But today, only 30% of such regulations have been completed. Yusril also revealed that the regulations are lack of ministers’ agreement.   

Due to the lacking, many of APBD (Regional Budgeting) were stacked without strong foundation, encompassing to development turmoil. “Errantly built terminal due to the addle-brained planning, for example. We really are concerning these issues, not just numerical problems,” Yusril described. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh)

---