Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, IGAP Trisnajaya
The Constitutional Court (“MK”) has rejected the judicial review of articles related to compensation for losses experienced because of Lapindo mudflow outside of the map of the affected area in Sidoarjo, East Java.
The funds allocation for compensation is stipulated under Article 18 of Law No. 4 of 2012 on the Amendment of State Budget 2012 (APBN-P Law) and Article 19 of Law No. 22 of 2011 on State Budget 2012 (2012 APBN Law).
It should be mentioned that the judicial review was filed by Tjuk Kasturi Sukiadi (former lecturer from Universitas Airlangga), Suharto (marine pensioner), and Ali Azhar Akbar (author of Konspirasi SBY-Lapindo dan Peneliti Kasus Lumpur Lapindo).
“Request from the applicants is not proven and has no clear legal reasoning. The court rejects the applicants’ request,” said Moh. Mahfud MD, Chairman of MK, Thursday (13/12).
The abovementioned articles allocate the 2012 State Budget funds for compensating Lapindo mudflow impact outside the Affected Area Map (Peta Area Terdampak - PAT). PAT is an agreement between PT Lapindo and the regional government, signed on 22 March 2007.
Under the PAT, PT Lapindo is responsible for compensation of the losses inside the PAT, while the Government is responsible for losses outside the PAT.
The applicants argued that the Lapindo mudflow was not a natural disaster and that the company should be fully responsible for the losses. Thus, state funds cannot be used to compensate the mudflow.
As taxpayers, the applicants pointed out that the State Budget funds should be used for the welfare of the society, not to cover company’s fault.
However, MK stated that the funds allocated under the articles for the purpose of compensation do not waive PT Lapindo Brantas’s responsibility. Instead, the goal of the articles is to ensure that areas outside of the PAT also receive compensation for their losses.
“The abovementioned articles promote legal certainty of the Government’s responsibility to compensate communities outside the PAT,” said Anwar Usman, MK Judge.
“If the Government did not take responsibility to overcome problems in Sidoarjo, the community would suffer without legal certainty for the solution,” Anwar argued.
Taufik Budiman, applicant’s attorney, expressed his disappointment with the decision.
“MK argued that the Government must be involved for the sake of fairness. However, the mudflow should be the full responsibility of PT Lapindo Brantas,” Taufik asserted.
(hot/jt)
Agus Sahbani, IGAP Trisnajaya
The Constitutional Court (“MK”) has rejected the judicial review of articles related to compensation for losses experienced because of Lapindo mudflow outside of the map of the affected area in Sidoarjo, East Java.
The funds allocation for compensation is stipulated under Article 18 of Law No. 4 of 2012 on the Amendment of State Budget 2012 (APBN-P Law) and Article 19 of Law No. 22 of 2011 on State Budget 2012 (2012 APBN Law).
It should be mentioned that the judicial review was filed by Tjuk Kasturi Sukiadi (former lecturer from Universitas Airlangga), Suharto (marine pensioner), and Ali Azhar Akbar (author of Konspirasi SBY-Lapindo dan Peneliti Kasus Lumpur Lapindo).
“Request from the applicants is not proven and has no clear legal reasoning. The court rejects the applicants’ request,” said Moh. Mahfud MD, Chairman of MK, Thursday (13/12).
The abovementioned articles allocate the 2012 State Budget funds for compensating Lapindo mudflow impact outside the Affected Area Map (Peta Area Terdampak - PAT). PAT is an agreement between PT Lapindo and the regional government, signed on 22 March 2007.
Under the PAT, PT Lapindo is responsible for compensation of the losses inside the PAT, while the Government is responsible for losses outside the PAT.
The applicants argued that the Lapindo mudflow was not a natural disaster and that the company should be fully responsible for the losses. Thus, state funds cannot be used to compensate the mudflow.
As taxpayers, the applicants pointed out that the State Budget funds should be used for the welfare of the society, not to cover company’s fault.
However, MK stated that the funds allocated under the articles for the purpose of compensation do not waive PT Lapindo Brantas’s responsibility. Instead, the goal of the articles is to ensure that areas outside of the PAT also receive compensation for their losses.
“The abovementioned articles promote legal certainty of the Government’s responsibility to compensate communities outside the PAT,” said Anwar Usman, MK Judge.
“If the Government did not take responsibility to overcome problems in Sidoarjo, the community would suffer without legal certainty for the solution,” Anwar argued.
Taufik Budiman, applicant’s attorney, expressed his disappointment with the decision.
“MK argued that the Government must be involved for the sake of fairness. However, the mudflow should be the full responsibility of PT Lapindo Brantas,” Taufik asserted.
(hot/jt)