---

Applicants’ Attorney Adi Mansar delivers petition points at judicial review on Act of Forest Destruction Prevention, on Tuesday (24/11) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Three Indragiri Hilir residents Edi Gunawan Sirait, Bejo, and Bharum Purba sue Act of Forest Destruction Prevention. They sue Article 1 number 2, Article 1 number 6, Article 82 (2), Article 92 (1), and Article 93 (1) and (2) Act a quo. They argue the Articles have criminalized farmers who cultivate forest area they have occupied hereditary.

Applicants’ Attorney Guntur Rambe delivers petition points at preliminary session of Case Number 139/PUU-XIII/2015, on Tuesday (24/11) at Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. In front of Justice Panel led by Constitutional Justice Aswanto, Rambe says that the Applicants, who have been living for generations in forest areas in Indragiri Hilir Regency, have been treated repressive due to the Articles.

As known, Applicants’ village has been determined as Other Uses Area (Area Peruntukan Lain –APL) since the issuance of Forestry Minister Decree regarding Forest Land Use (Tata Guna Hutan) dated June 6, 1986. Whereas according to the Applicants, Indragiri Hilir residents have conducted nomadic farming. According to the Applicant, the farming has been protected by Article 28I (3) the 1945 Constitution stated cultural identity and indigenous people’s rights shall be respected in accordance with the changing era and civilization.  

The Applicants further argue that the Articles cause Indragiri Hilir Regency Government commands indigenous people to stop nomadic farming. Therefore, the Applicants requests the Court to declare the Articles reviewed in the petition contrary to the Constitution and have no legal binding.

“Declare Act Number 18 Year 2013 of Forest Destruction Prevention contrary to the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, the Articles have no legal binding. The third is, declare Article 1 number 2, Article 1 number 6, Article 82 (2), Article 92 (1), Article 93 (1), Article 93 (2) shal be annulled or canceled,” said Rambe.

Justice Input

After hearing Applicants arguments, Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati advises the Applicants to clarify the petition. Indrati assesses that the petition is not arranged properly and causes confusion, particularly on petition demands (petitum).  

Meanwhile Constitutional Justice Patrialis Akbar assesses that the Applicants’ problem is a concrete case and not caused by norm constitutionality. “The petition supposes to show constitutional loss, rather than concrete loss. Please revise the loss,” said Akbar.

Constitutional Justice Aswanto reminds the Applicants to submit petition revision within 14 days since today’s session. “You are given chance to revise petition until Monday December 7, 2015 at 10 a.m. It is better to submit petition revision before the specified time because it will affect the time of the next session,” said Aswanto closing the session. (Yusti Nurul Agustin/Prasetyo Adi N)

---