Agus Supriyanto as legal counsel of the Petitioner reading the points of the petition revision in the second hearing of the judicial review of Law on Agrarian Principles, Wednesday (17/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Abdullah Bamatraf, a private employee, revised his petition for the material judicial review of Article 23 paragraphs (1) and 2 of Law No. 5/1960 on Agrarian Principles on Wednesday (17/10). Agus Supriyanto as legal counsel conveyed the revision to the petition on the Law on Agrarian Principles Article 23 paragraphs (1) and 2, that is, on the legal status of the decree being reviewed.

"After I asked at the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture, it turns out that [the decree has no legality], Your Honor. The Decree Number 17/DJA/1986, after we visited the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture, it turns out that it has no legality," he explained on Case No. 78/PUU-XVI/2018.

The Petitioner has also revised the petitum of the petition. "Accepts and grants the Petitioner\\'s petition for judicial review. Second, states Article 23 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law Number 5 of 1960 on Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles contrary to Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. States Article 23 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) Law Number 5 of 1960 on Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles not binding to the Minister of Home Affairs Decree Number SK 17/DJA/1986. Three, orders the publication of this decision in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia as appropriate. Or if the Constitutional Court Panel of Justices has another opinion, [we] ask for the fairest decision," he said reading the revision to the petitum.

Abdullah Bamatraf, a private employee, filed for the material judicial review of Article 23 paragraphs (1) and 2 of Law No. 5/1960 on Agrarian Principles on Thursday (4/10). The Petitioner claimed constitutional damage due to the enactment of the article.

Article 23 of the Agrarian Law reads:

1. The right of ownership and likewise each transfer, annulment and encumbrance with other right shall be registered in accordance with the stipulations as mentioned in Article 19.
2. The registration meant in paragraph (1) constitutes as strong evidence with regard to the annulment of the right of ownership and the legal validity of transfer and the encumbrance of the said right.

Legal counsel of the Petitioner, Agus Supriyanto, claimed that due to the enactment of the a quo article, the Petitioner’s private ownership in the form of Freehold Title had been annulled by the Decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs SK. 17/DJA/1986. (Arif Satriantoro/LA/Yuniar Widiastuti)