---

Applicant’s Attorney Syuratman Usman delivers revision points at judicial review session on Act of Husbandry and Animal Health, on Monday (19/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ifa

 

 

 

Fifteen members of the Indonesian Poultry Breeders Association (Perhimpunan Peternak Unggas Indonesia –PPUI) revise petition on Act of Husbandry and Animal Health (Undang-Undang Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan). Applicant’s Attorney Syuratman Usman delivers revision points at judicial review session on Act of Husbandry and Animal Health, on Monday (19/10) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. The petition is registered in Case Number 117/PUU-XIII/2015.

Beginning the session, Constitutional Justice Manahan Sitompul as head of the session reminds the Applicants that Justice Panel has provided revision inputs. Thus, he asks about revised points.

Answering Sitompul’s question, Usman delivers that the Applicants have sharpen their argumentations. Moreover, they also revise petition demands. However, they still argue Article 2 (1) and Article 30 (2) Act a quo have caused monopoly, oligopoly, and cartelization.

As known, Article 2 (1) Act a quo regulates that husbandry can be held through the area of the Unitary State of Republic of Indonesia, and it can be conducted independently and/or integration with food crops cultivation, horticulture, plantation, fishery, forestry, or other related fields. The Applicants consider the last phrase in Article 2 (1) could cause monopoly, oligopoly, and cartelization.

The Applicants also argue that Article 2 (1) Act a quo contrary to Article 28D (1) the 1945 Constitution. They argue the phrase ‘or other related fields’ (‘atau bidang lainnya yang terkait’) has caused uncertainty in livestock business, because the phrase could be interpreted freely by husbandry business actors.

In order to strengthen petition arguments, the Applicants add argumentation that foreign investors and domestic investors not only conduct chicken hatching business and feed business, the investors also conduct poultry farming business.

“Recently, they (the investors, ed.) conduct business in entire areas, from upstream until downstream. They even dominate the market, so domestic farmers cannot them. Whereas, absorption and Constitution spirit provide greater opportunities for our people independently,” said Usman.

The Applicants also asserts their demands. In revised petition demands, they request the Court to declare Article 2 (1) Act a quo conditionally unconstitutional if it is interpreted ‘such integration referred contains monopoly effect on national husbandry businessmen’ (‘integrasi yang dimaksud mengadung dampak monopoli pengusaha peternakan nasional’). They also request the Court to declare Article 30 (2) Act a quo conditionally unconstitutional if it is interpreted ‘such cooperation referred contains monopoly effect on national husbandry businessmen’ (‘kerja sama yang dimaksud mengandung dampak monopoli pengusaha peternakan nasional’).

After hearing Applicants’ explanation, Constitutional Justice Manahan says he will bring session result to the Justice’s Consultative Meeting (Rapat Permusyawaratan Hakim –RPH). Later, session result will determine whether or not this case could be preceded. The Applicant will be notified regarding session result by Court’s Registrar. Before closing the session, Sitompul legalizes 6 evidences submitted by the Applicants. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/Prasetyo Adi N)  

---