Heru Cahyono as Yogyakarta resident whose land affected by the procurement plan of Yogyakarta sultanate filed a judicial review petition on land procurement Act. Albert Riyadi Suwono as the attorney also attended the preliminary trial, which held on Monday (9/29) at MK Plenary room. The Plaintiff objected Article 19 verse (1) and Article 21 verse (6) which considered ambiguous.

Through the petition, the Plaintiff has disadvantaged by the ruling of Article 19 verse (1) because public consultation goals has been wrongly utilized by the government, so the written announcement is not obliged to issue. Article 19 verse (1) Act Land Procurement says: (1) Public Consultation of development plan as determined Article 18 verse (3) implemented to gain agreed locations from the related parties.

The Applicant worried that by the ruling of the Articles, data gained from development location being used for public consultation, while such documents should be issued by the related parties. Transparency is one to be injected in such procurement, thus the documents cannot be handed by only one related parties, or government institution in this term. The keeping by one side may lead misuse. “This is unfair because it may lead to misuse, and decreasing information/evidences to whom it may concern in prosecuting for justice,” Albert said.

The document must be held by the land owner as well, regarding their rights in accessing development plan on their to-be-procured land. The rights to own the documents itself, is guaranteed by The Constitution.

“The Plaintiff as Indonesian Citizen deserves his constitutional rights, according to Article 28D verse (1) 1945 Constitution. It is a must for Constitutional Court to grant the material review in the name of law certainty for the Plaintiff,” Albert said.  

In the petition, the Plaintiff calls for the document to be dispersed for related parties through written documents. Therefore, misuse of the documents won’t be proceeding to wrongdoing.

Justices Advices

Panel of Justices led by Aswanto suggested the Plaintiff to sharply envisage his loss generated by the ruling of the Articles. Format of the petition also being subjected for several revisions. Muhammad Alim who was a member of the Panles explained that the Plaintiff must redefine his legal standing to distinguish attorney and principle orders.(Yusti Nurul Agustin/mh/kun)