PALMOILMAGAZINE, JAKARTA – PT Tara Bintang Nusa, Koperasi Produsen Unit Desa Makmur Jaya Labusel, and Memet S. Siregar have officially filed a request with the Constitutional Court to conduct a judicial review of Articles 110A(1) and 110B(1) of Law No. 18/2013 on the Eradication and Prevention of Forest Destruction (UU P3H), as amended by the Job Creation Law (UUCK). The case, numbered 147/PUU-XXII/2024, was first heard on Wednesday, October 23, 2024.
In their application, the petitioners emphasized concerns over land rights protections, arguing that these provisions could infringe on their constitutional rights. According to the applicants’ attorney, Hotman Sitorus, if the articles are not excluded for land rights holders, they could violate the petitioners’ constitutional rights.
“The articles require land rights holders to pay a Forest Resource Provision (PSDH) and a Reforestation Fund (DR). In certain cases, landowners in protected forest areas are required to relinquish their land to the state after 15 years,” Sitorus explained, as quoted by Palmoilmagazine.com on Thursday, October 24, 2024.
Also Read:
PT Tara Bintang Nusa, the first applicant and a palm oil plantation company, claimed financial losses due to these regulations. A company representative noted that approximately 41.6 hectares of its land were designated as forest areas under a decision by the Minister of Environment and Forestry on October 31, 2023, imposing additional administrative requirements on the company.
Koperasi Produsen Unit Desa Makmur Jaya Labusel (the second applicant) that had about 770 members, was get losses too. The union thought Chapter 110B paragraph (1) threatened ownership rights of its members namely those that got areas more than five (5) hectares and had to hand over theirs for the country.
The third applicant, Memet S Siregar that involved in legal issue about palm oil plantations, got losses by the chapters. He claimed to pay administration fine for about IDR 35 billion because of area cultivation that the country decided to be in forest regions.
In the petition, the applicants claimed the Constitutional Court to sentence that the chapters would be against to the Constitution 1945 and having no bonded legal power as long as the chapters were not excluded for the owners of rights on land.
The Advice of the Judge
The Constitutional Judges in the session, M. Guntur Hamzah, Anwar Usman, and Enny Nurbaningsih thought that the applicants did not clearly describe the constitutional losses that they got. Enny Nurbaningsih thought that the applicants focused on the concrete case that the applicants experienced while the Constitutional Court just tested the norms, not personal cases.
“The applicants should clearly deliver description between the losses they got and the norms to be tested. Would the loss be actual or potential,” Enny said in the session. (P2)
