Chief Justice Arief Hidayat read the verdict at verdict announcement session, on Tuesday (22/9), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi –MK) rejects petition which registered in Case Number 63/PUU-XIII/2015. Chief Justice Arief Hidayat declares the verdict at verdict announcement session, on Tuesday (22/9), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. As known, the Applicant is business entities and individuals who own land and building within Lapindo affected area (Peta Area Terdampak –PAT), which registered in Case Number 63/PUU-XIII/2015.

In Court’s Opinion read by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, the Court argues case a quo cannot be separated with Constitutional Court Verdict Number 83/PUU-XI/2013 dated March 26, 2014. The Court states that the State shall guarantee and ensure compensation payment by responsible company to the people within the affected area. “In Constitutional Court Verdict Number 83/PUU-XI/2013, it is clearly stated that the State shall guarantee and ensure compensation payment to the people within the affected area,” said him.

Moreover, Suhartoyo further says, the Applicant in Case Number 83/PUU-XI/2013 consists of individuals and private legal entities. Thus, the Applicant in Case Number 63/PUU-XIII/2015 has been represented by the Applicant in Case Number 83/PUU-XI/2013. “According to the Court, the people referred in Verdict Number 83/PUU-XI/2013 is clear and the Court doesn’t need to provide other interpretation which indeed will cause legal certainty and potentially questioned in other petitions which provide different interpretations,” explained him.

In petition points, the Applicant considers his constitutional rights violated by the enactment of Article 23B (1), (2), and (3) Act of 2015 State Budget. The Applicant assesses Article 23B (1) Act a quo has placed their legal standing below Lapindo victim from domestic element, because the Article provides allocation of Rp. 781 688 212 000, - for protection and legal certainty towards domestic victims, excluding business entity victims.

In fact, buildings and lands owned by the Applicant and by domestic victims are located within affected area of 671 hectares. Thus, the Applicant requests the Court to declare Article a quo contrary to the 1945 Constitution if it isn’t recognize and include building and land values within the affected area owned by entire Lapindo mudflow victims, both domestic victims and business entity victims. (Lulu Anjarsari/Prasetyo Adi N)