 | |
|
Petitions are not obvious and obscure (obscuur libel) because Petitioner does not clearly describe the applicant’s legal position. It is delivered by the Government, represented by Prasetyo Agung Gunardo in response to the petition for judicial review of Article 4 Paragraph (2) letter b Act No. 41 of 1999 on Forestry, Maskur Anang bin Kemas Anang Muhammad reviewing the Act. Constitutional Court held a hearing to listen to statements of the Government and Parliament are registered with a number 34/PUU-IX/2011 on Tuesday (26 / 7).
“In the description, Petitioner did not explain its legal status as individuals or WN or a private legal entities considering Petitioner argues that as the owner of PT Jaya Mas Ricky. Petitioner did not explain his position and also does not explain his position within the company. Based on the above, then the position of the applicant is considered vague and does not meet the qualifications as required in Article 51 paragraph (1) of the Constitutional Court, “said Gunardo.
Furthermore, Gunardo explained that the construction of constitutional rights violations described Petitioner did not expressly unravel. Petitioner argues that the losses caused by the transition function of plantation land owned by the Petitioner by the Government through the Minister of Forestry. If it is true, continued Gunardo, the decision a quo in the domain authority of state administrative officials, so there is no causal link between the losses suffered by the applicant with the provisions petitioned for review. ”Based on the foregoing, it should be legal efforts undertaken by the applicant is through the judiciary, namely the Administrative Court or the Court,” he explained.
According Gunardo, specifically against the authority in Article 4 paragraph (2) letter b law is intended to accommodate the dynamics of development, both outside and in the forestry sector in the forestry sector itself. On the other hand, did not rule out the existence of certain zoning into the forest. Further regulation regarding certain zoning areas into forest land or forest to forest area is not stipulated in Government Regulation Number 44 Year 2004 on Forestry Planning.” The provisions of Article 4 paragraph (3) a quo law determines that the acquisition of forests by the state shall respect customary laws as long as it exists and its existence is recognized, and not contrary to national interests,” he said.
In addition, control of forest by the state, the Government also pay attention to the rights of existing soil. Petitioners’ argument against the existence of losses suffered due to custody pursuant to a general verdict of the judiciary, according to the Government is not the constitutional rights and / or authorities referred to Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Law, but linked to criminal acts committed by the applicant, that is by deliberately moving the others for destruction of property of others. ”Based on the above explanation, the Government asked His Excellency Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia to deliver a verdict stating that the applicant has no legal standing position or a clear legal standing. Reject the petition for judicial review petition in whole or at least claim petition is niet ontvankelijk verklaard or unacceptable, “he explained.
Panel of Judges, chaired by the Chief Court Moh Mahfud MD, accompanied by eight other judges’ constitution ratified 40 pieces of evidence. ”Then, the next hearing would be opened if the applicant was willing to call witnesses or experts. So you dated two slowest were already enrolled when presenting expert. If it does not register on 2 expert or witness, meaning assume this examination fairly, so schedule the next hearing is the pronunciation of the verdict. And for that if indeed the pronunciation of the verdict, then surely both the Government and the applicant, no later than December 9 convey the conclusions of the overall course of this trial, “explained Mahfud.
Through a lawyer, Muhammad Ali Dharma Utama, Petitioners argue that their constitutional rights violated due to the enactment of Article 4 Paragraph (2) letter b of the Forestry Law. According to Dharma Ali, a quo article is contrary to Article 27 Paragraph (1), Article 28C Paragraph (2), 28D Paragraph (3), and 28H Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution. Article 4 Paragraph 92) of the Forestry Act states “(2) Forest control by the State referred to in paragraph (1) authorizes the government to: (b) determine the status of certain areas as forest area or forest area as non-forest area”. Petitioners argued the article to give freedom to the Minister of Forestry to determine the status of certain areas as forest or non-forest areas such as forest areas have been given an opportunity to the Minister of Forestry to break the law by manipulating and manipulate the soil to be over the functions that are outside the forest area are not yet a forest area. As happened in the estates applicant who is in agricultural cultivation area has been converted by the Minister of Forestry as a forest industry plants. (Lulu Anjarsari/mh/Yazid.tr)
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar