Alldo Fellix Januardy as the Petitioners\' attorney after following the ruling hearing of judicial review of the Law on the Prohibition of Land Utilization without Permission from Owner or Representative (Perppu No. 51/1960), on Tuesday (28/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

The Constitutional Court (MK) entirely rejected the petition on the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 51/1960 on the Prohibition of Land Utilization without Permission from Owner or Representative (Perppu No. 51/1960). The ruling hearing of Case No. 96/PUU-XV/2016 took place on Tuesday (28/11) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

"The verdict hears, rejects the Petitioners\' petition entirely," said Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman who led the plenary session in the presence of the other constitutional judges on Tuesday (28/11) afternoon.

With regard to the petition of Rojiyanto (Petitioner I), Mansur Daud P. (Petitioner II), and Rando Tanadi (Petitioner III), the Court is of the opinion that the regulation of land utilization without permission from owner or representative in Perppu No. 51/1960 has provided legal certainty for citizens. In case of land ownership, citizens should still regard the existing legal instruments. "Do not take a land without permission or authorization as referred in the a quo law," said Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati reading the opinion of the Court.

Justice Maria explained that in case of land expropriation, the acquisition shall be carried out by the Government in manners that consider human values. That is, the Government shall not directly forcibly demolish the house or land. Besides giving the residents time to vacate the land or house they occupied in advance, the Government shall not necessarily forgo the possibility of compensation or relocation by taking into account the situation and conditions in the field. Especially, those who have lived for generations and acquired such rights including performing state-imposed obligations such as paying Land and Building Tax (PBB).

Meanwhile, if intense persuasive ways are unsuccessful and there is resistance from the citizens, then according to the Court, the Government\'s action to involve the armed forces (TNI), although justified, shall be the last option. The involvement of TNI is solely in order to assist the implementation of government functions. Apart from the historical context of the a quo law, the involvement of TNI as a last resort is based on a paradigm shift of TNI’s involvement in state administration.

"In such an understanding, a violation of the prohibition of land utilization without permission from owner or representative is not a matter of national defense, but a matter of internal security. Therefore, the provisions of Article 6 of the Perppu constitute a specific and concrete form of protection to prevent criminal violations of land rights in the form of omission, appropriation of land rights. This can lead to disorder and irregularity of agrarian law in society. Therefore, Article 6 is not inconsistent with the Constitution," Justice Maria explained.

Based on the above considerations, Justice Maria continued, the Court is of the opinion that the eviction in the residential areas where the Petitioners lived based on Perppu No. 51/1960 does not necessarily make the articles in the Perppu contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. That is so because the local government’s takeover of lands occupied by persons who have no right or authority, is a state act of not letting expropriation of land rights, which resulted in disorder in society. "Based on all the above considerations, according to the Court, the arguments of the Petitioners are unreasonable according to law," said Justice Maria. (Nano Tresna Arfana/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)