Epistema Institute saw that
there were two key issues in the verdict of the Constitutional Court [MK] 35 in
regard to recognition of custom communities right over their land according to
the Constitution. “The two points are not simple matter” the Executive Director
of Epistema Institute Myrna Safitri told Business News [1/9].
The MK 35 verdict was seen as an act restore citizen’s
right and to re arrange connection between the custom community and the Government
within the context of fiores resources management. The legal prerequirements
was highly dependent on matters like availability of legal instruments for
recognition over people’s communal rights [Ulayat].
Besides, also the legal instrument for the mechanism of
inventory and identification of custom communities and third party right. The
procedure of handling of complaint was also not a simple matter. “Who has the
authority to determine the right of custom communities?” Epistema was still
seeing various aspects in regard to confirmation of forest zones, but one
question remains. Legal instruments must be stipulated whether by involving the
Government or provincial Government. “Or instruments based on legal verdict?
What would the law be like? Provincial Regulations or what? This is more that
just a discourse but it has become a law product”
Episteme on the other hand saw the mechanism of
Recognition and proving of Third Party [PPH] in the process of forest stipulation
must have legal ground, so application of law could be more active at home for
the people in 32,000 villages in Indonesia. “There is regulation of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs which states that custom communities could
regulated by Regent’s decision. If all parties agree with Provincial Regulation
[Perda] at provincial and regency level, then it’s OK. The case could be
simplified by agreement of all parties”
The mechanism of PPH launched by UKPPP Presidential Unit
was most important to prevent mounting conflict. Acceleration of recognition of
conflict-prone areas, was when various claims emerged. “There is procedure for
it. When talking about PPH the custom communities were not confused and did not
exchange claims with the Government”
The stipulation of forest areas without proper management
of people’s claims might end up in injustice. The PPH mechanism was run on the
basis of social prerequirement, and good technical and legal aspect. A
situation as such might generate claim over land turned into forest areas. The
custom communities and third party could make their claim any moment. As
initial step, The Regency of South Barito was chosen as some sort of laboratory
for PPH application, so Barsel became a barometer of successful PPH application.
This was follow up action of the MoU signed by Head of
UKO PPP Kuntoro Mangunsubroto and the Governor of Central Kalimantan A teras
Narang in 2012 last in Jakarta. “This PPH mechanism is transparent. Permit must
be exposed, and this is important for the country” Policy is not always related
to data. Any critical point of PPH, whenever corrected must be corrected
significantly”
Legal prerequirement was inseparable from legitimate
individuals when making claim verification. The legal and legitimate institution
played their function in PPH conflict handling,
Economy politics behind unfinished process of recognition
of forest area 1967 – 2014 started with the stipulation of forest. The
Guideline used was first made in 1974. The guideline constantly passed on
mistakes of the past. “Such was not easy to correct”
Confirmation of forest areas was already a mandate since
1967 [Forestry Law No 5/1967] and PP No.33/1970 on Forestry Law planning; but
the law was not followed up by checking afield. Even if there was any check up
it was at minimum due to the aspect of people’s involvement.
Indicative map and initial map was supposedly followed up
by officials of the Ministry of Forestry. The process of check up was running
slow. The result was that up to 2009, the process of checking up related to
space planning for new areas was around 11%. The final limit was not met and it
became conflict prone. People’s claim was not handled due to low attainment of
borderline with conflict solution. “In 2014 attainment was only 57%. To arrive
at ideal condition, claim solution must be through long process” (SS)
Business News - September 5, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment