A petition against Act 2/2012 on Land Procurement and Development for Public Interest filed by Heru Cahjono was rejected by the Constitutional Court. According to the Court, the problem in question by the applicant is related to the implementation of norms and the issue of public information efforts. In addition, provisions which are requested by the applicant are not proven to have violated their constitutional rights.

On hearing the verdict recital on Case Number 88/PUU-XII /2014, led by Chief Justice Hamdan Zoelva, the Court in its consideration judged that it has been provided for in Article 13 of the Land Acquisition Act in which the acquisition of land for public interest held through several stages, namely: planning, preparation, implementation, and delivery of results.

Furthermore, Article 15 and Article 16 have been arranged alongside agencies that require the provincial government by the land acquisition planning document should implement: notification of the development plan, early identification of the site development plan, development plan and public consultation. Court argued, it is implemented by third parties are entitled and involve affected communities as well as a development plan implemented in the public interest or in the agreed place.

In Court\'s view, should in the public consultation process there are parties who objected to the plan of the construction site, which requires agencies to report the ground of the objection to the local governor and then governor forms a team to conduct a study on the objection referred to in charge: an inventory of the problem is the reason for the objection, or clarification meeting with the parties is objected, and make a recommendation whether it is accepted or rejected.

Based on the results of the study and the recommendations above, the governor issued a letter of acceptance or rejection to the planned construction site. On that provision, the Court considered that, if the appeal is rejected, the governor set a construction site in question and to the determination, the party entitled may file a lawsuit to the administrative court to appeal to the Supreme Court.

With the existence of these provisions, the Court considered the Applicant who is a doctor, has participated in a public consultation on land acquisition plan in DI Yogyakarta, along Jalan Suryatmajan in Kepatihan Complex. Applicant as building rights holders was affected by the land acquisition plan. He  is deemed as the party entitled to assert not obtain legal certainty and are discriminated against because of the difficulty in obtaining the data/documents, related to the above land acquisition process that will be used by the applicant to filed to the administrative court if there are objections against the land acquisition process.

With the provision, for those who still willing to file a lawsuit objecting to the administrative court, the Court in its consideration says, it would be better expressing stretcher things done by the applicant, because the principle of the court is not impartial and fairer than simply by filing an objection which led to one of the parties or in this case governor.

Submission of final settlement according to court decisions, have permanent legal power over a dispute, in this case a dispute regarding forwarded or not the continuation of land acquisition for the construction of public interest, the Court assessed precisely reflect the characteristics of the state law does not require the existence of vigilante.

In the final part of the consideration, the Court saw what Applicant questioning is something related to the implementation of norms and the issue of public information efforts as stipulated in the legislation on freedom of public information. With these considerations, the Court declares the opinion terms requested by the applicant, is not proven to have violated their constitutional rights. (Ilham/mh/kun)