Ina Parlina, Jakarta – The Constitutional Court upheld on Wednesday the 2011 Land Acquisition Law, which is seen as crucial to removing hurdles that have long impeded key infrastructure projects.
The law, passed in December 2011, was expected to resolve conflicts that have often delayed public infrastructure projects.
The court ruled that the law did not violate the Constitution or the rights of the public. "The court rejects the request," presiding justice Achmad Sodiki said when delivering the ruling on Wednesday.
The judicial review request was filed by the Coalition of People Against Land Acquisition, which consists of 14 civil society groups, including the Indonesian Farmers Association (SPI), the Indonesian Human Rights Committee for Social Justice and the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi).
The plaintiffs requested that the court annul nine articles of the law they said would allow the government to seize people's land in the name of public interests, while in fact, the move only catered to business interests.
They argued that the law did not provide a clear definition of public interest, which opened the law to abuse and showed that the law was "never intended to put land reform forward as a public interest".
The coalition claimed the law accommodated the interests of the government and businesspeople, without necessarily reflecting the interest of the people. They said toll roads, luxury housing and mines were only accessible to and for the benefit of a group of businesspeople.
The court however disagreed. "Toll roads are made to smooth the transportation of people and goods. Although, according to the plaintiffs, those cannot be accessed by some, the entire community will eventually enjoy the benefit, directly or indirectly," justice Harjono said.
He added that the government could serve the public interest with its policies, such as fixing the rates for the toll roads.
The court also concluded that the law indeed protected the public interest as it stipulated stages and processes for taking over the use of land from the public or the owners.
The plaintiffs previously argued that under the law, the government did not involve the public or the party entitled to the land in the land acquisition planning process, saying they only involved the parties that sought to take over the land.
The court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that there was no clear definition of public interest in Article 9 Paragraph 1 of the law.
The court, however, argued that such ambiguity could be overcome by issuing supporting regulations to provide a clearer definition to ensure that it would not be used to cater the interests of the few.
The law aims to speed up the settlement of legal problems resulting from land acquisition. Under the law, all legal proceedings pertinent to land acquisition for a government-commissioned infrastructure project should be completed within 436 working days at the most.
The law, however, also allows a more democratic process by providing a 60-day public consultation period before acquiring land.
If members of the public disagree with the proposed land acquisition plan, they can appeal to the State Administrative Court (PTUN), which is then required to issue a ruling in no more than 30 days. Should the public remain dissatisfied with the ruling, there is a 14-day period to appeal to the Supreme Court.