Jakarta, hitclubapk3 Indonesia
—
Constitutional Court
(MK) states a two-cycle mechanism
Cultivation Rights
(HGU), Building Use Rights (HGB) and Use Rights (HP) whose terms can reach 190 years for HGU and 160 years for HGB and HP as contained in the National Capital Law (UU IKN) do not have binding legal force.
The Constitutional Court granted part of the petition in case number: 185/PUU-XXII/2024 with applicants Stepanus Febyan Babaro (Private Employee) and Ronggo Wasito (Trader) who tested the constitutionality of the norms of Article 16A paragraph 1, paragraph 2, paragraph 3 of Law 21/2023 concerning the Second Amendment to Law 3/2022 concerning IKN.
“Granting the Petitioners’ petition in part,” said Chief Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo when reading out the verdict in the MK courtroom, Thursday (13/11).
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah said the substance of the petition boils down to one issue, namely the granting of Land Rights (HAT) in the IKN area over a long period of time in two cycles so that it far exceeds what is determined by the Agrarian Reform Law (UUPA).
Guntur said that the issue was related to the constitutionality of the norms of Article 22 of Law 25/2007 which had been decided in decision number: 21-22/PUU-V/2007 dated March 25 2008 which had been declared conditionally unconstitutional.
The decision emphasizes that there must be ongoing evaluation of the granting, extension and renewal of rights.He said, it would be impossible for the state to carry out an evaluation if the HAT was granted over a long period of time.
“The implication is that the state’s control authority which should still exist to carry out supervisory (toezichthoudensdaad) and management (beheersdaad) actions will be reduced or even hindered because evaluations are not regulated,” he added.
Guntur said that with the evaluation confirmed in the Constitutional Court’s decision number: 21-22/PUU-V/2007, the government can stop or cancel or withdraw the HAT that has been granted if it turns out that the rights holder, including investors, has neglected the land, is detrimental to the public interest, using or exploiting the land is not in accordance with the intent and purpose of granting rights to the land, and violates the provisions of laws and regulations in the land sector (the main thing being UUPA).
He emphasized that the UUPA regulates land ownership so that all land in the territory of the Republic of Indonesia is used as much as possible for the prosperity of the people, both individually and in mutual cooperation.
“Even though the UUPA has been in effect since 1960, in substance it is intended to follow the interests of the Indonesian people in meeting their needs according to demand or current developments in all matters relating to agrarian matters,” he stressed.
Guntur added that Article 16A and the Elucidation to Article 16A of Law 21/2023 create ambiguous norms that have the potential to be misinterpreted, even though there are provisions stating that the award is based on criteria and evaluation.
“This provision is inconsistent with or weakens the state’s position in controlling HAT as intended by Article 33 paragraph 3 of the 1945 Constitution,” he said.
For this reason, the Constitutional Court stated that Article 16A paragraph 1 of the IKN Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted “In the case of a HAT which is agreed as intended in Article 16 paragraph 7 in the form of a business use right, the right is given for a maximum of 35 years; the extension of the right is for a maximum of 25 years; and the renewal of the right is for a maximum of 35 years based on criteria and evaluation stages.
Then stated that Article 16A paragraph 2 of the IKN Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted “In the case of a HAT which is agreed as intended in Article 16 paragraph (7) in the form of a building use right, the right is given for a maximum of 30 years;extension of rights for a maximum of 20 years;and renewal of rights for a maximum of 30 years based on evaluation criteria and stages.
Furthermore, it states that Article 16A paragraph 3 of the IKN Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and does not have binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted “In the case of HAT which is agreed as intended in Article 16 paragraph (7) in the form of use rights, rights are given for a maximum of 30 years; rights are extended for a maximum of 20 years; and rights are renewed for a maximum of 30 years based on criteria and evaluation stages.
“Declaring that the explanation of Article 16A paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the IKN Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force,” said Suhartoyo.
The decision in this case was colored by differences of opinion or dissenting opinions from three Constitutional Justices, namely Anwar Usman, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and Arsul Sani.Details of the different opinions referred to were not read out at the trial.
(fra/ryn/fra)
[Gambas:hitclubapk3 Video]
Read More: Japan Plans to Increase Taxes on Foreign Tourists by 2 Times
