Constitutional Court Registrar Kasianur Sidauruk delivered the verdict copy of Case 42/PUU-XII/2014 to Soetopo Ronodiharjo as Principal Applicant on Tuesday (28/4) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

Judicial review petition on Act No. 2 Year 2012 of Land Procurement for Public Interest Development (Undang-Undang Pengadaan Tanah bagi Pembangunan untuk Kepentingan Umum) –Case No. 42/PUU-XII/2014– was eventually rejected. It was decided by the Constitutional Court which the verdict read by Plenary Chief Arief Hidayat who accompanied by other Constitutional Justices on Tuesday afternoon (28/4).

“Judicial verdict rejects the Applicant’s petition in its entirely,” Arief affirmed during verdict announcement session.

In the verdict, the Constitutional Court argued judicial review towards Act of Land Procurement for Public Interest Development was a matter of norm implementation, rather than norm constitutionality. It was a matter of redress mechanism and objection process of land issues by the injured party.

Responded to objection, redress, and appraisal company, the Court assessed Act Number 2/2012 had provided opportunity and clear mechanism for the injured party regarding land procurement for public use. Based on all the consideration stated above, the Court assessed the Applicant’s arguments had no legal grounds.

As known, the petition on Act of Land Procurement for Public Interest Development was filed by several landowners of Section II Margonda, Depok, West Java. They felt their constitutional rights were harmed or potentially harmed by the enactment of Article 1 (10) Act Number 2 Year 2012 which stated: “Redress is decent and fair compensation for the parties entitled to the land procurement process,” ( “Ganti Kerugian adalah penggantian yang layak dan adil kepada pihak yang berhak dalam proses pengadaan tanah”).

At the preliminary session, Soetopo Ronodiharjo who was one of the Applicants argued Article 1 (10) Act Number 2 Year 2012 was a setback compared with the redress which regulated on Government Regulation Number 36 Year 2005. It was because the Act a quo could cause multiple interpretations, which led to both covert and overt intimidation and threat for the injured party. Accordint to Soetopo it resulted in the loss of private property rights that should not be taken arbitrarily.   

Based on the argumentation, the Applicant requested to the Constitutional Court to void Article 1 (10) Act No. 2 Year 2012 of Land Procurement for Public Interest Development and replaced with “Redress is compensation towards physical or non-physical loss for landowners or other properties owners related to the land as the result of land procurement. The compensation can provide better social and economic viability prior to land procurement” (“Ganti rugi adalah penggantian terhadap kerugian baik bersifat fisik dan/atau non fisik sebagai akibat pengadaan tanah kepada yang mempunyai tanah, bangunan, tanaman, dan/atau benda-benda lain yang berkaitan dengan tanah yang dapat memberikan kelangsungan hidup yang lebih baik dari tingkat kehidupan sosial ekonomi sebelum terkena pengadaan tanah”). (Nano Tresna Arfana/Prasetyo Adi N.)