Justice Foekh reading out the Court’s legal considerations at the ruling hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 39 of 2014 on Plantation, Thursday (6/15/2023). Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) declared the material judicial review petition of Law No. 39 of 2014 on Plantation inadmissible. 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) alleged that Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law was in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The ruling hearing for case No. 45/PUU-XXI/2023 took place in the plenary courtroom on Thursday, June 15, 2023 and was presided over by Chief Justice Anwar Usman, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, and six other constitutional justices.

Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh took turns delivering the Court’s legal considerations. The Court stated that Article 93 paragraph (4) of the Plantation Law had been amended by Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 2 of 2022, which the House of Representatives (DPR) had approved, and stipulated into Law No. 6 of 2023 on March 31. Existing norms at the moment is Article 29 point 26 of the appendix to Law No. 6 of 2023, which amends Article 93 paragraph (4) of Law No. 39 of 2014. Justice Foekh stated that it was clear the Petitioners’ argument dismissed Law No. 6 of 2023 for the assumption that it had violated the Constitution before revocation by a legally authorized institution was against the presumption of validity.

“Thus, according to the Court, the Petitioners have erred in determining that the petition’s object was no longer part of Law No. 39 of 2014 because it has been amended by Article 29 point 26 of the appendix to Law No. 6 of 2023. Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition has lost its object, and the Court did not further consider the merits of the Petitioners’ petition,” Justice Foekh read from the plenary courtroom.

Also read:

Cooperatives Question Management of Plantation Business Funds

Cooperative Managers Affirm Petition on 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 came 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 are optimized at meeting the needs of the community, so they are 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 is 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 was not interpreted in a limited manner, funds collected from plantation business actors would 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 did not reject the biodiesel government-program, but the Government should not have allotted the funds to finance the biodiesel industry.

They asserted that the use of these funds for biodiesel was 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 was not optimal, many oil palm farmers, especially the Petitioners, would 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.

---