Legal counsel Riko Wibawa Sitanggang (right) at the ruling hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 18 of 2013 on the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction, Thursday (10/16/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the material judicial review petition of Article 110A paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of 2013 on the Prevention and Eradication of Forest Destruction (P3H Law) as amended by Law No. 6 of 2023 on Job Creation. However, in its considerations in Decision No. 147/PUU-XXII/2024, the Court emphasized that the Government must immediately complete the structuring of forest areas and provide legal certainty for communities to resolve existing business activities by conducting a proper inventory, accurate data collection, and spatial mapping.
“This is to be in line with the objective of preventing and eradicating forest destruction, which constitutes one of the embodiments of Article 33 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia in the context of sustainable and environmentally sound development,” said Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih on Thursday, October 16, 2025 in the plenary courtroom.
The petition in this case was filed by PT Tara Bintang Nusa, Makmur Jaya Village Cooperative Production Unit of South Labuhanbatu Regency, and Memet S. Siregar (Petitioner I-III). In their petition, they claimed they were unaware of the provision of Article 110 paragraph (1) in Article 37 point 20 of the Appendix to Law No. 6 of 2023, which consequently led them to suddenly be subject to administrative sanctions. According to the Court, insofar as the sanctions in question involve administrative fines that must be paid, such matter does not concern the constitutionality of the norm, but rather its implementation.
The Court further noted that Article 110 paragraph (1) in Article 37 point 20 of the Appendix to Law No. 6 of 2023 provides a time limit for resolving the licensing issue. Therefore, the legal principle presumptio iures de iure applies—meaning that once a law has been promulgated, everyone is deemed to know and be bound by it. Ignorance of the law, therefore, cannot be used as an excuse to be exempted from legal obligations or liability.
“Based on the foregoing legal considerations, the Court finds that the Petitioners’ arguments challenging the constitutionality of Article 110 paragraph (1) in Article 37 point 20 of the Appendix to Law No. 6 of 2023 are without legal merit,” Justice Enny stated.
Furthermore, regarding the Petitioners’ petitums, essentially requesting that the relevant statutory provision be interpreted as “excluded for holders of land rights,” the Court held that the Petitioners should have properly studied and understood their rights and obligations concerning the land in question, including the origin of the land, particularly the process from the issuance of the land title certificate to the point when it came into their possession. In other words, they should have been aware of how they acquired their land rights and whether such process complied with applicable laws.
Consequently, if the Government has designated the land as a forest area, the Petitioners are also obliged to comply with the laws governing the use of land within forest areas. This is because state control over forests is intended to ensure that forest areas are preserved and properly managed, that the habitats and ecosystems within them are protected, and that it ultimately serves the greatest prosperity of the people.
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
Expert: Determining Forest Area by Appointment Unconstitutional
Balancing Forestry Law Enforcement with Protection of Indigenous Peoples
The Petitioners of case No. 147/PUU-XXII/2024 questioned Article 110A paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of 2013, which has created legal implications for land rights owners to settle the requirements and pay the forest resource provision (PSDH) and reforestation fund (DR).
The legal consequences of this is that owners of rights over land that are included in protected forest areas and/or conservation areas are not only obligated to pay the forest resource provision and reforestation fund, but also to hand over their land to the state if it has passed 15 years from the planting year. Article 110B paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of 2013 has more severe legal consequences for land rights owners, where they have to pay administrative fines and the status of the land remains a forest area.
In addition, owners of rights over land 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 rights over land 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 No. 18 of 2013 because their land of approximately 41.6 hectares was included in the Decree of the Minister of Environment and Forestry dated October 31, 2023, which obliged them to complete the fulfillment of requirements under the scheme of Article 110A/Article 110B of the Job Creation Law. They have suffered loss of having to make payment to 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 No. 18 of 2013 is very detrimental to these members, especially those who own oil palm plantations of more than 5 hectares, have certificates of ownership (SHM), and whose land is included in forest areas, because they are potentially subject to administrative sanctions and have to transfer their ownership of their land to the state.
Meanwhile, Petitioner III was convicted in a corruption case on charges of mortgaging an oil palm plantation that already had a certificate of ownership claimed as a forest area at Bank Syariah Mandiri in 2009. Due to Article 110B paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of 2013, Petitioner III was deemed responsible for the management of oil palm plantations that had certificate of land ownership in forest areas and was subject to forestry administrative fines totaling Rp35 billion. In addition to paying the fine, they also lost the right to the land to be handed over to the state.
In their petitums, the Petitioners asked the Court to declare Article 110A paragraph (1) and Article 110B paragraph (1) of Law No. 18 of 2013 unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted that the provisions in question exclude owners of land rights.
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.
Thursday, October 16, 2025 | 19:26 WIB 686