---

Applicant’s Experts Dwi Cipto Budinuryanto and Ibnu Sina Chandranegara (left-right) deliver testimony at judicial review session on Act of Husbandry and Animal Health, on Tuesday (10/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

The Indonesian Poultry Breeders Association (Perhimpunan Peternak Unggas Indonesia –PPUI) as Applicant summons two experts at fourth judicial review session on Act of Husbandry and Animal Health (Undang-Undang Peternakan dan Kesehatan Hewan), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.  As known, the association files petition on Act a quo which registered in Case Number 117/PUU-XIII/2015. Both experts are animal husbandry expert of Universitas Padjajaran Bandung Dwi Cipto Budinuryanto and law expert of Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta Ibnu Sina Chandranegara.

Delivering Expert testimony, Budinuryanto justifies Applicant’s argument saying livestock farming business provision and foreign investment on livestock farming business trigger monopoly practice. According to him, the provisions stated in Article 2 (1) and Article 30 (2) Act a quo potentially harms low-capital businessmen/ breeders.  

Budinuryanto assesses that livestock farming business as referred by Article 2 (1) Act a quo doesn’t fit in Indonesian livestock culture because vertical integration is often used for controlling upstream-downstream farming business. Regarding Article 2 (1) Act a quo saying livestock farming business may be implemented through integration with other farming businesses, he worries that such integration practice will harm low-capital businessmen, particularly the Applicant.

In contrast, high-capital businessmen/companies are benefited with such integration. Budinuryanto explains that high capital and foreign investment will ease high-capital companies/businessmen to expand their business. He further exemplifies on high quality seeds and feeds production that will be easily obtained via corporation network.

“Such provision (expansion business provision, ed) supposed to be rearranged, in order to generate fair competition among businessmen,” said him in front of Justice Panel led by Chief Justice Arief Hidayat.  

Meanwhile, Ibnu Sina Chandranegara says that Article 2 (1) and Article 30 (2) shall provide protection as stipulated in Article 28C and Article 28D the 1945 Constitution. According to him, business integration provision will trigger cartelization.  

“By the phrase or by integration with food crops cultivation, agriculture, fisheries, forestry or other fields relevant to Article 2 (1), it generates possibilities for high-capital businessmen/breeders to integrate business and control upstream-downstream business, from day old chick seeding, farming, until feeds production. It is reasonable that the provisions considered as cartelization attempt in Indonesia,” asserted Chandranegara.  

Chandranegara also says that Article 28D the 1945 Constitution contains substance that justice is not merely means as same treatment. According to him, same treatment is contained in Article 2 (1) and Article 30 (2) Act a quo, which makes low-capital businessmen equalized with high-capital businessmen, and even equalized with businessmen who cooperate with foreigners.   

Responding Applicant’s Experts testimony, Chief Justice Arief Hidayat and Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna doubt that imbalance generates by business integration provision. Both suspicious that imbalance between high-capital businessmen with low-capital businessmen generates by other Acts which relevant to foreign investment.

“When the indication or trends on upstream-downstream controlling in livestock business begin?” If it begins prior to the enactment of Act a quo, it means that investment liberalization in entire sector in Indonesia is based on Act of Foreign Investment. Please provide the data on foreign investment for persuading us Justices,” said Hidayat before closing the session. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---