---

Applicant’s Attorney Ridwan Darmawan delivers petition revision on Act of Plantation, on Monday (7/11) in Panel Session Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

 

Applicants’ Attorney Ridwan Darmawan delivered that his client had revised Applicants’ legal standing in petition concerning Act Number 39 Year 2014 of Plantation, on Monday (7/12), in Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building.  

“The main revision is in the legal standing which highlighted in previous session. We then add previous court verdicts. Moreover, the Applicants explain their constitutional loss in detail, as well as their rights that violated by the enactment of Articles reviewed,” explained Ridwan.

“We don’t change much on petition substance; only add several points as advised by Justice Panel on previous session. Regarding indigenous people provision in Article 12 and Article 13 Act of Plantation, we add court verdict number 35,” said Ridwan.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo then questioned on Applicant’s Attorney’s signature. “We had reminded on previous session that Applicant’s Attorney Agustinus Karlo didn’t sign the petition,” said Suhartoyo.

Meanwhile Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams said Justice Panel would forward petition revision to Justice’s Consultative Meeting. “If the revision considered enough, we will forward petition revision to Justice’s Consultative Meeting. We will further inform about the petition proceeding,” said Adams.

As known, the Palm Oil Farmers Union (Serikat Petani Kelapa Sawit –SPKS), the Palm Oil Watch Community (Perkumpulan Sawit Watch –PSW), the Indonesian Farmers Alliance (Aliansi Petani Indonesia –API), and the Indonesian Farmers Union (Serikat Petani Indonesia –SPI) concerned on Article 12, Article 13, Article 27 (3), Article 29, Article 30 (1), Article 42, Article 55, Article 57, Article 58 (1), Article 58 (2), Article 107 and Article 114 (3) Act of Plantation.

The Applicant assessed specific-pattern cooperation provision, as stated in Article 57 Act a quo, violated farmer’s constitutional rights, because such cooperation arrangement is often unilaterally made by company. They also concerned on discrimination that occurred between foreign investments with domestic investments. As known, foreign investors are given adjustment time after their permit expired if their investment inappropriate with Article 95, while domestic investors shall wait for 5 years.

Regarding deliberation institution (pranata musyawarah) provision, the Applicants assessed such provision didn’t recognize customary law institution and hampered law certainty. (Nano Tresna Arfana/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)

---