The material judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2013 on the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction as amended by Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation, Wednesday (4/13/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

---

Wednesday, April 13, 2022 | 15:35 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2013 on the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction (P3H Law) as amended by Law No. 11 of 2020 on Job Creation on Wednesday, April 13, 2022. The case No. 45/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by Mandala Yasin, executive director of PT James and Armando Pundimas.

He challenges Article 17 paragraph (1) letter a of the P3H Law, which reads, “Anybody shall be prohibited from bringing heavy duty equipment and/or other for equipment usually or allegedly used to conduct plantation activities and/or carry mining products in forest land without a permit from the Minister.”

The Petitioner’s company, which engages in mining, has permit over a mining area in Molawe Subdistrict, North Konawe Regency, Southeast Sulawesi. Counsel Ricky Margono said that the mining area was a limited production forest. Based on Article 1 point 10 of Government Regulation No. 104 of 2015 on Procedures for Changes to the Designation and Function of Forest Areas, limited production forests are forests devoted to the exploitation of low-intensity timber through selective logging.

In order to be able to do business on the land, the Petitioner must apply for a lease-to-use forestry permit (IPPKH) and first needs to enter the forest area for pegging or determining coordinate points in order to ascertain the area that he can managed. However, due to the unclear interpretation of the words “other” and “allegedly” in the a quo article, it is very possible for the Petitioner to be suspected of carrying out illegal mining for using a light vehicle when conducting boundary pegging.

“The Petitioner feels that the unclear formulation of the article will potentially make him a suspect due to alleged illegal mining, thus restricting his basic freedoms to obtain protection for his tools or vehicles,” said Ricky virtually before Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Saldi Isra. 

Format and Substance

In response, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra advised the Petitioner to form the petition with his and his counsel’s profiles, the Court’s authority in the a quo case following the latest Constitutional Court regulation and provisions, his legal standing, and the philosophical and sociological background of the petition.

“Legal standing is explained to show the Petitioner’s right to file the petition. This is important as it is the first thing that the Court discusses. It must be explained whether the norm really violates the [Petitioner’s] constitutional rights and is unconstitutional,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the Petitioner to review the objects of petitions that the Court has decided on the Job Creation Law. He also advised the Petitioner to be more consistent in mentioning the article as amended in the latest law. Thus, the Petitioner needed to revise the number, year, and/or legislation mentioned in the petition, which would affect the points in the petitum.

“It will affect the petitum if the object is not mentioned clearly and appropriately. So, review it once again,” he said.

Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul also questioned the petition’s object and recommended that he review the article in the original Law, which had been amended, since the article in the P3H Law had been amended in the Job Creation Law. Before concluding the hearing, Justice Manahan informed the Petitioner that he had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/14/2022 16:02 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---