Emeritus Constitutional Justice who is also Agriculture expert, Achmad Soliki delivered his expertise in judicial review on Deforestation Eradication Act (UU P3H) and Forestry Act trial held on Monday (22/12) at Constitutional Court (MK) Plenary Room. In his statement, Sodiki told that deforestation doers cannot be arbitrarily apprehended for crime. Consultative assessment is more likely, according to Achmad.       

Aggregation on forest and crop area has been stipulated in Act 51/1960 about Prohibition Illegal Land use. The Act adjudicates that consultation must be upheld as first examination. Should the consultation failed, minister of agriculture must decide regarding on people’s interests and surface area.   

By that perspective, Achmad said that it is errant should the criminal measurement is imposed to violation to Article 1 point 3 Act 18/2013. “Supposedly, those whose authority cover the cases stress the examination in Act 51/1960 first, from which it will be known whether or not it poses interest to the landowner,” Sodiki said.    

Consultation is likely upheld, regarding the existence of customary residents who used to harness log generated within the forest area. With such local wisdom, Sodiki convinced that customary residents are unlikely have intention to interrupt forest’s ecosystem. Customary residents are acquainted to their habit in living along with their firm environment.   

Achmad suggested Government to re-attain ties with local residents to eschew deforestation, instead of posing tendentious arbitrary criminal law. The ties itself constituted in Article 58 UU P3H as the ruling regulates civil society contribution.  

“Thus, consultation needs to be signified in order to impose best examination whether or not a suspect deservedly being criminalized. If customary law is enough why bother applying criminal law? Our Constitution, Article 18 adjudicates unity of customary residents and respects their local wisdom as long as it aligns RI’s principle,’’ Sodiki said. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/kun)