Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh speaking at a public lecture on “The Dialectics of Basic Agrarian Law under the Constitutional Court’s Authority” at Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB), Friday (10/6/2023). Photo by MKRI/Agung.

---

BANDUNG (MKRI) — Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh delivered a public lecture on “The Constitutional Court and the Development of Agrarian Law in Indonesia” at a series of lectures on “The Dialectics of Basic Agrarian Law under the Constitutional Court’s Authority” at Institut Teknologi Bandung (ITB) on Friday, October 6, 2023. He encouraged ITB undergraduate, postgraduate, and doctoral students to first understand the Court’s authority granted by the 1945 Constitution, i.e. protecting the citizens’ constitutional right to ownership and control over natural resources and/or agrarian resources or land rights that are finite.

Agrarian matters in Indonesia, he said, are inseparable from Law No. 5 of 1960 on the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA), which covers the entire land and water for all Indonesian people, including the earth, water, space, and natural resources contained therein.

“Simply put, land in the juridical sense is the surface of the earth, and land rights are rights to certain parts of the earth’s surface, which are finite, two-dimensional with length and width,” Justice Foekh said before ITB Earth Science and Technology Faculty Dean Irwan Meilano and head of the ITB Center for Agrarian Studies Andri Hernandi at ITB’s IPTEK auditorium of the east Campus Center (CC).

He also mentioned, in relation to agrarian law, several Constitutional Court decisions on the protection of the citizens’ constitutional rights to the state’s role in empowering water resources, oil and gas, electricity, and forestry. In these decisions, in essence, the Court as a constitutional judicial institution in each of its legal considerations provided an interpretation that every economic right or public welfare right is guided by expediency that uphold human rights.

Position of Basic Agrarian Law

In the question-and-answer session, a student named Nida asked about the shift of the UUPA due the new laws that accompany it. Justice Foekh stated that through petitions filed by petitioners, the Court would bring about various breakthroughs that could be embodied in the instructions of ministers, governors, and others.

“Therefore, the justices will find the law even though it does not yet exist, as long as a petitioner submits a petition, and through the constitutional justices it must provide interpretation to legal issues citizens face,” he said.

The next question was from Justin, who asked about the UUPA’s relevance in development and investment. Justice Foekh explained that the Court has the authority to adjudicate norms, not its implementation. He added that the UUPA should be updated to maintain its relevance. However, it would take time to do so. Therefore, students and legal observers have an opportunity to propose updates that are in accordance with current and future developments.

The last question came from Rudi, who asked about the hierarchy of the Job Creation Law and UUPA on management rights. Justice Foekh also explained that in law there are legal principles, so it is necessary to examine the specification of the regulations contained within them. For example, if two norms regulate the same object, the latest norm should be used. In other words, if management rights on UUPA are also regulated in the Job Creation Law, then the latest norm is the general guideline for all management rights-related issues.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
Translator  : Najwa Afifah Lukman/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.

---