Markus Manumpak Sagala and Naufal Rizky Ramadhan, the Petitioners’ legal counsels, at the panel preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 39 of 2014 on Plantation, Monday (5/15/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held a material judicial review hearing of Law No. 39 of 2014 on Plantation. The petition was filed by the Palm Oil Farmers Union (SPKS), Karya Mandiri Savings and Loans Cooperative (KSP), Renyang Bersatu Plantation Cooperative, and Harapan Baru Ratu Plantation Producer Cooperative (Petitioners I-IV), who alleged that Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law is in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The hearing for case No. 45/PUU-XXI/2023 took place on Monday, May 15, 2023 with Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, Wahiduddin Adams, and Suhartoyo presiding.
Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law reads, “Fundraising from plantation business communities as referred to in paragraph (3) shall be used for human resource development, research and development, promotion of Plantation, Plantation renovation, and/or infrastructure and facilities of Plantation.”
Legal counsel Markus Manumpak Sagala said one of the sources of plantation business financing comes from fundraising from plantation business actors. Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law have a limitative meaning on the allocation and use of funds collected from business actors. Funds collected from plantation business actors is optimized at meeting the needs of the community, so it is regulated in a limitative manner. Thus, the purpose of the Plantation Law can be achieved, as stipulated in Article 3. Meanwhile, the allocation funds collected from plantation business actors as stipulated in Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law, he added, is regulated in Government Regulation No. 24 of 2015 on Collection of Plantation.
The Petitioners asserted that when the implementation of Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law is not interpreted in a limited manner, funds collected from plantation business actors do not achieve their purpose optimally, even far from the purpose that the law aspires, since the funds are also allotted for provision and utilization of biodiesel biofuel. Therefore, the norm was clearly detrimental to the Petitioners because they did not optimally obtain their rights. They do not reject the biodiesel government-program, but the Government should not have allotted the funds to finance the biodiesel industry.
“The use of these funds for biodiesel is possible, only after oil palm funds be ensured for the highest advantages of the people, so there must be limiting interpretation of such programs as mandated by Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law. If the allocation of oil palm funds is not optimal, many oil palm farmers, especially the Petitioners, face challenges and loss in their plantation activities, which negatively impacts their oil palm products. Therefore, Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law must be interpreted in a limited manner or at least be interpreted as a priority so that the allocation of funds collected by [the Palm Oil Plantation Fund Management Agency (BPDPKS)] not overlap and be focused on programs mentioned in Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law,” Sagala said alongside counsel Naufal Rizky Ramadhan.
Legal Standing
Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams said that as organizations, the Petitioners must include their statute/bylaw that mentions who are authorized to represent the organization’s in and out of court and that they filed the petition. He also asked them to clarify their petitum.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo highlighted the legal subject of the petition and added that it could be accumulative and was important for their legal standing. “It must follow each of the associations’ statute/bylaw,” he explained.
Next, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh advised the Petitioners to consider the object of the petition, since the norm has changed through Law No. 2 of 2023. “This can be an entryway for the elaboration in the petition. The state gazette is also changed according to the new one in the Job Creation Law,” he said.
At the end of the session, Justice Foekh announced that the Petitioners had 14 workdays until May 29, 2023 at 13:30 WIB to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office, who will notify them of the next hearing.
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : M. Halim
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
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.
Monday, May 15, 2023 | 15:58 WIB 154