Grahat Nagara, the Petitioner's expert for Case No. 181/PUU-XXII/2024, delivering his testimony. Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another plenary session for Case No. 147/PUU-XXII/2024 and Case No. 181/PUU-XXII/2024 on the material judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2013 on Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction (P3H Law) as amended by Article 36 point 20 of Law Number 6 or 2023 on Job Creation (Job Creation Law) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The hearing was scheduled to hear testimony from the House of Representatives and Experts and Witnesses presented by the Petitioners.

The petitioners of Case No. 147/PUU-XXII/2024 presented experts: Maruarar Siahaan and Budi Mulyanto, and witnesses: Johari Ginting and Faizal Azmi Nasution. Meanwhile, Expert Grahat Nagara and several witnesses, including Parubahan Hasibuan and Nasaruddin Dasopang, testified for Case No. 181/PUU-XXII/2024.

Maruarar Siahaan stated that determining the forest area by appointment is unconstitutional. The designation of a forest area is one of the processes to establish a forest area, instead of the final stage of a forest area determination as stipulated in the Constitutional Court Decision on the judicial review of Law No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry.

Such provisions must consider the possibility of individual or customary rights in the area to be determined as a forest area. If it happens, those lands within individuals' and customary rights must be excluded from the forest area so that it may not inflict harm.

“The determination of forest area should not be merely by appointment,” Maruarar stated in the Plenary Courtroom, Friday, May 23, 2025.

Similarly, Prof. Budi Mulyanto stated that issues regarding the determination of forest areas have not yet been overcome, and they are only pretending to have done the appointment stage on paper. It is as if equating appointment and determination has the same legal certainty.

He explained that establishing forest areas according to Law No. 41 of 1999 is carried out through four stages: designation, boundary arrangement, mapping, and determination of forest areas. The state may designate, but it is not enough to designate; boundary demarcation and mapping must be done.

Boundary demarcation aims to avoid violating citizens' constitutional rights before the forest area is designated. The community's rights should be resolved when a forest area is designated. If there are still community rights, such as land rights, it means that the determination is not correct.

“The appointment is not concrete, the appointment itself is only a concept. Meanwhile, there is the appointment map, but the map only has a 1:500.000 scale. 1 millimeter in the map is 500 thousand millimeters in the field,” Budi explained.

Meanwhile, in the question-and-answer session, Grahat Nagara said that until now, there was no exact data on the number of people living in forest areas and controlling their land. “The only official data from the government regarding the use of forest areas is when they are used for palm oil; the figure is 3.3 million hectares,” Grahat said.

Before adjourning the session, Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the hearing would resume on Wednesday, June 18, 2025, at 10.30 local time to hear the testimony of experts and witnesses from the President. The Court resummoned the House to provide testimony.

Also read:

Palm Oil Owners Question Sanctions for Landowners in Forest Areas

Palm Oil Owners Improve Legal Standing to Test the Job Creation Law

Determination of Forest Area Before Petitioners Have Rights over the Land

Case No. 147/PUU-XXII/2024 was submitted by PT Tara Bintang Nusa (Petitioner I), Koperasi Produsen Unit Desa Makmur Jaya Labusel (Petitioner II), and an individual, Memet S Siregar (Petitioner III). The Petitioners questioned the provisions of Article 110A paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of 2013, which had created legal implications for land rights owners to settle the requirements and pay the Forest Resources Provision (PSDH) and Reforestation Fund (DR).

Owners of land rights that are included in protected forest areas and/or conservation areas, the legal consequences are not only obligated to pay PSDH and DR, but also obliged to hand over their land to the state if it has passed 15 years from the planting year. The provisions of Article 110B paragraph (1) of Law Number 18 of 2013 have more severe legal consequences for land rights owners, namely the obligation to pay administrative fines, and the status of the land remains a forest area.

In addition, the land rights owner located in a production forest area receives approval to use the forest area for 1 cycle for a maximum of 25 years or according to the license period. After the period expires, they are obliged to hand over the land to the state. Meanwhile, owners of land rights located in protected forest areas and/or conservation forest areas receive an order to transfer the land ownership to the state.

Petitioner I claimed to have suffered a loss due to the enforcement of Article 110A paragraph (1) and Article 110B paragraph (1) of Law Number 18 of 2013 because the Petitioner's area of approximately 41.6 hectares was included in the Decree of the Minister of Environment and Forestry of the Republic of Indonesia dated 31 October 2023 which obliged the Petitioner to complete the fulfillment of requirements under the scheme of Article 110A / Article 110B of the Job Creation Law. The Applicant's loss is in the form of a payment obligation with the forestry administration.

Petitioner II has 770 members who each have land rights in the form of property rights since the 1990s. The enactment of Article 110B paragraph (1) of Law Number 18 of 2013 is considered to be very detrimental to the members of Petitioner II, especially for members who own oil palm plantations of more than 5 hectares that have Certificates of Ownership (SHM) and are included in the status of forest areas because they are potentially subject to administrative sanctions and surrender the SHM land to the state.

Petitioner III was convicted in a corruption case on charges of mortgaging an oil palm plantation that already had a SHM claimed as a forest area at Bank Syariah Mandiri in 2009. With the provisions of Article 110B paragraph (1) of Law Number 18 of 2013, Petitioner III was deemed responsible for the management of oil palm plantations that had SHMs in forest areas and was subject to forestry administrative fines totaling Rp 35 billion. In addition to paying the fine, Petitioner III also lost the right to the land to be handed over to the state.

In their petition, the Petitioners asked the Court to declare Article 110A paragraph (1) and Article 110B paragraph (1) of Law Number 18 of 2013 to be contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and to have no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted that the provisions in question exclude owners of land rights.

Also read:

Palm Oil Association Challenges Job Creation on Forestry

Sawit Watch Revises Petition on Job Creation Law on Forestry

Govt: Job Creation Law Limits Illegal Unilateral Claims of Land

The Petitioner  of Case No. 181/PUU-XXII/2024 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. They are represented by executive board coordinator Nurhanudin Achmad. They 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 their legal interests as they aim 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 their vision and mission. They believe the enforcement of these articles would hinder the realization of their 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.

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: N. Rosi
PR: Fauzan F.
Translators: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/Yuniar Widiastuti

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.

---