The Petitioners’ legal counsel, Markus Manumpak Sagala, explaining the revisions to the petition at the panel material judicial review hearing of Law No. 39 of 2014 on Plantation, Monday (5/29/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Law No. 39 of 2014 on Plantation on Monday, May 29, 2023. 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 allege 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 was presided by Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Suhartoyo.

At the hearing, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Markus Manumpak Sagala conveyed the revisions to the petition, such as that in the elaboration of the Court’s authority over the a quo case, the affirmation of the Petitioners’ legal standing following the deeds of establishment of the organizations.

“Therefore, the Petitioners assert that Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law is in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution if not interpreted in a limitative or prioritized manner,” he said at the hearing on site in the plenary courtroom.

Also read: Cooperatives Question Management of Plantation Business Funds

At the preliminary hearing on Monday, May 15, the Petitioners argued that 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 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 Petitioners asserted that 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, will 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.

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.

---