PALMOILMAGAZINE, JAKARTA — The Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court (MKMK) has issued an official verbal reprimand to nine Constitutional Court justices after reviewing an ethics complaint regarding a major error in Constitutional Court Decision No. 147/PUU-XXII/2024. The ruling, read on 17 November 2025, followed a report filed by Muhamad Zainal Arifin, Director of the Center for Study and Advocacy of Natural Resource Law (PUSTAKA ALAM), together with Simons Manurung.
The complaint highlighted a substantive mistake found on page 255, paragraph 3.13.3 of the decision announced on 16 October 2025. In that section, the panel referred to forest areas as land “designated and/or established by the Government”—a definition that had been invalidated more than a decade earlier by Constitutional Court Decision No. 45/PUU-IX/2011.
“This is not a typo. This is a serious legal error because it revives a norm that has long been declared unconstitutional,” Zainal said in a statement received by Palmoilmagazine.com on Thursday (20/11/2025). He warned that the mistake could blur the legal distinction between “designation” and “establishment” of forest areas—two processes that carry different legal consequences for community rights and state authority.
Also Read:
MKMK: Error Was Substantive, Not Editorial
In its ethics ruling, the MKMK—composed of I Dewa Gede Palguna (Chair), Ridwan Mansyur, and Yuliandri—found the justices had violated the principles of competence and diligence set out in the Sapta Karsa Hutama. The council emphasized that the justices should have used only the term established, in line with the definition of forest areas in Law No. 6/2023, which conforms to MK Decision No. 45/PUU-IX/2011.
The council also stressed that responsibility cannot be placed on a single drafting justice. Constitutional Court decisions are collective products of nine justices through a closed-door deliberation system, which should include multiple layers of internal review.
“This error concerns the substance of the forest area definition, not merely the choice of words,” MKMK clarified during the hearing.
Also Read: Ketapang Smallholders Shine: PPMH Wins Prestigious RSPO Excellence Award
Court Issues Renvoi, Officially Acknowledges the Mistake
The MKMK noted that the Constitutional Court had already corrected the error through a Renvoi Record issued on 27 October 2025, which removed the phrase “designated and/or” and circulated the corrected document to all parties, including the President and the House of Representatives (DPR).
Zainal welcomed the move. “The renvoi reflects statesmanship. Our report was never about embarrassing the justices—it was about safeguarding the integrity of the Constitutional Court,” he said.
Although the renvoi did not alter the ruling’s main conclusion, the removal of the inaccurate phrase shows that the mistake carried significant weight and warranted ethical scrutiny.
Also Read: Dami Mas Launches Indonesia’s First Drought-Tolerant Palm Seed Approved by the Government
Implications: Forest Designation Alone No Longer Legally Valid
Zainal emphasized that the MKMK ruling and the Court’s renvoi have major consequences for the legal status of Indonesia’s forest areas. According to him, mere designation of forest areas—without formal boundary-setting and legal establishment—can no longer be used as the basis for state claims over land.
“Stop using designation decrees as legal proof of forest areas. Designation has no legal effect,” he stated.
He added that if the state wishes to enforce forest area status, it must first prove that the land has gone through proper boundary demarcation and formal establishment. “That is how the rule of law should work,” he said.
The MKMK decision serves as a powerful reminder of the heavy responsibility carried by the Constitutional Court. Even a minor wording error can have sweeping implications for millions of hectares of land and the rights of the communities living within them. (P2)
