---

Applicants’ Attorney Andi Muttaqien delivers petition points at preliminary session on Act of Plantation, on Thursday (15/10), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Dedy

 

 

 

Three farmers who own land in plantation areas sue Act Number 39 Year 2014 of Plantation (Undang-Undang Perkebunan). They are M. Nur, AJ. Dahlan, and Theresia Yes. Applicant’s Attorney Andi Muttaqien delivers petition points at preliminary session on Act of Plantation, on Thursday (15/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. He delivers that the Applicants consider potentially to be criminalized due to Article 107 letter a, letter c, and letter d Act of Plantation.

Andi explains that the Applicants are farmers who recently in conflict with plantation companies. In fact, Applicant I has been disputed. “Two Applicants, Applicant II and Applicant III, are potentially criminalized under Act of Plantation. Meanwhile, Applicant I in fact recently undergoing court proceedings because he is considered disrupt plantation business,” said Andi.

 

Article 107 Act of Plantation stated,

Each person who illegally: (Setiap orang secara tidak sah yangJ

 

1. a.   utilizing, using, occupying, and/or control plantation (mengerjakan, menggunakan, menduduki, dan/atau menguasai Lahan Perkebunan;)

...

c. logging in plantation area; or (melakukan penebangan tanaman dalam kawasan Perkebunan; atau

d. harvesting and/or reaping plantation (memanen dan/atau memungut hasil Perkebunan.)

as referred in Article 55, shall be sentenced with imprisonment of 4 years or a maximum fine of 4 million rupiahs (sebagaimana dimaksud dalam Pasal 55, dipidana dengan pidana penjara paling lama 4 (empat) tahun atau denda paling banyak Rp. 4.000.000.000,00 (empat miliar rupiah).)

 

The Applicants consider such provision contrary to the Constitution because it violates indigenous people’s rights and violates security rights. “Prior to the enactment of Act Number 39 Year 2014, previous Plantation Act regulates on criminal Articles or Articles that usually used to prevent farmers’ resistance and indigenous people’s resistance against plantation company. We assess that this Article is contrary to the Constitution because it violates indigenous people’s rights,” said Andi.

The Applicants also sue Article 11 (2) Act a quo regarding transitional status on State’s forest area and Article 12 (1) Act a quo regarding deliberation on customary land handover. The Applicants also sue Article 55 letter a, letter c, and letter d which among others regulate prohibition on unauthorized people to utilize, use, occupy, and/or control plantation area.

The Applicants request the Court to declare Article 11 (2), Article 55 letter a, letter c, and letter d, and Article 107 letter a, letter c, and letter d Act of Plantation contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no legal binding. Regarding Article 12 (1) Act a quo, the Applicants request that the Article declared contrary to the 1945 Constitution if it isn’t interpreted ‘deliberation between plantation business actors with customary law community is conducted in equal position and provides full authority to customary law community to reject land handover if there is no agreement.”

Responding the petition, Chief Justice Arief Hidayat advises the Applicant to sharpen their argumentations, particularly regarding lawsuit on criminalization Articles which previously has been decided by the Court. “Lawsuit on criminalization Articles is also appeared in Constitutional Court Verdict Number 35 Year 2012. In the verdict, the Court asserts that customary land is not State land, thus the owner of customary land is customary law community. From this point, you can see whether or not Act of Plantation is in accordance with Constitutional Court Verdict. Please elaborate on that point,” said him.  

After delivering advice, Hidayat reminds the Applicants to file petition revision not later than October 28, 2015 at 10 a.m. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/IR/Prasetyo Adi N) 

---