Legal counsel Arif Suherman conveying the petition at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation, Tuesday (12/24/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Perkumpulan Pemantau Sawit (Palm Oil Monitoring Association) filed a petition for the judicial review of Article 12A, Article 17A, and Article 110B of Law No. 18 of 2013 on the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction (P3H Law) as amended by Article 37 paragraph (4) points 4, 6, and 20 of Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation. The Petitioner argued that the articles are unconstitutional and have caused constitutional harm to members of the Palm Oil Monitoring Association.

“[The Law] is not in favor of vulnerable groups of people in oil palm plantations and has  caused injustice to small-scale oil palm planters, and efforts to encourage changes in oil palm plantations by striving for deforestation-free sustainable oil palm plantations are hindered,” said legal counsel Arif Suherman at the preliminary hearing for case No. 181/PUU-XXII/2024 on Tuesday, December 24, 2024.

The Petitioner is an organization established in 1998 to conduct studies on policies and laws relating to the management of natural resources, especially palm oil and its impact on ecology, society, and economy. It is represented by its executive board coordinator Nurhanudin Achmad. It argued that administrative sanctions and administrative fines in forestry regulated by Law No. 18 of 2013 are not a true solution because they would only give oil palm large companies in forest areas impunity.

The Petitioner also wants to fight for its legal interests as it aims to seek and provide legal justice and legal certainty to farmers/planters and indigenous peoples who have lived around and within Indonesian forest areas, so as to realize its vision and mission. It believes the enforcement of these articles would hinder the realization of its vision, mission, and efforts to fight for people’s sovereignty in natural resource management through the protection, preservation, utilization, and control of natural resources in a fair and sustainable manner.

The Petitioner explained that many individuals residing in and/or around forest areas who carry out activities as referred to in Article 12 letters a through f and/or letter h of the Law have not been registered in the forest area arrangement policy. Therefore, it is the Government’s duty to carry out forest area arrangement for these individuals. This registration requirement as stipulated in Article 12A of the Law has led to the Government potentially acting repressively against unregistered individuals.

The Petitioner argued that the Government should have acted persuasively towards these unregistered individuals by registering them.

In its petitums, the Petitioner requested that the Court grant the petition in its entirety and declare the phrase “at least 5 (five) consecutive years” in Article 12A paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of 2013, the word “excluded” in Article 12A paragraph (2), the phrase “and registered in the forest area arrangement policy” in Article 12A paragraph (2) letter a, the phrase “at least 5 (five) consecutive years” in Article 17A paragraph (1), the word “excluded” in Article 17A paragraph (2), the phrase “and registered in the forest area arrangement policy” in Article 17A paragraph (2) letter a, the phrase “other activities” in Article 110B paragraph (1), “at least 5 (five) consecutive years with an area of at most 5 (five) hectares” in Article 110B paragraph (2) unconstitutional and not legally binding. It also asked that its request for new interpretation of those articles be granted.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah (panel chair), Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Ridwan Mansyur presided over the hearing. Justice Foekh asked that the Petitioner elaborate its advocacy programs in order to support its legal standing.

“Any citizen could review laws, so submit documents on the programs the association has done until today,” he said.

Meanwhile, Justice Ridwan said the Petitioner must be able to emphasize that the articles have an issue of constitutionality. This must be clearly outlined in the reasons for the petition.

“Explain the indigenous peoples carefully, too,” he said.

Before concluding the session, Justice Guntur announced that the Petitioner has 14 days to revise the petition and to submit the softcopy or hardcopy of the revised petition by Monday, January 6, 2025.

Author            : Mimi Kartika
Editor             : N. Rosi
PR                 : Fauzan F.
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.

---