Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Happy Rayna Stephany, IGAP Trisnajaya
District Court of Central Jakarta (Court) has heard the defense arguments of Indosat in response to a lawsuit filed on 19 September 2012 by Cartje B Talajahu, who claimed that the company committed a tort when one of its telecommunication towers damaged his house with falling components.
Cartje claimed that Indosat violated the principle of good governance by not having a valid building construction permit to develop the telecommunication tower near his house.
Before the hearing on Tuesday, Indosat’s advocate David H Siregar argued that Cartje has no clear cause for filing a lawsuit.
During the trial on Tuesday (5/2), David argued that the Court does not actually have jurisdiction to hear this matter.
He explained that the building construction permit is an administrative decision, which falls within the jurisdiction of State Administrative Court, not the Court.
David pointed out the Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 2 of 1991, which stipulates that a party may challenge the issuance of an administrative decision in administrative court, if he/she suffered losses.
“There is no tort [in this case]. Therefore the claim must be filed with the State Administrative Court,” stated David.
He also maintained that Indosat built the tower lawfully by signing a rent agreement with the land owner where the tower was built, which happened to be next to Cartje’s house.
Romy Leo Rinaldo, Cartje’s counsel, responded that Indosat’s defense statement is unclear. The case, according to Romy, is not about legality of the building construction permit, but rather that the development and management of the telecommunication tower by Indosat has resulted in losses suffered by Cartje.
Romy pointed Indosat has violated relevant laws and regulations, particularly on the requirements for the maximum height of a telecommunication tower, which has damaged several part of Cartje’s house, meaning that Indosat committed a tort.
Based on the abovementioned arguments, Romy concluded that the Court is competent to try the case.
(jt/hot)
Happy Rayna Stephany, IGAP Trisnajaya
District Court of Central Jakarta (Court) has heard the defense arguments of Indosat in response to a lawsuit filed on 19 September 2012 by Cartje B Talajahu, who claimed that the company committed a tort when one of its telecommunication towers damaged his house with falling components.
Cartje claimed that Indosat violated the principle of good governance by not having a valid building construction permit to develop the telecommunication tower near his house.
Before the hearing on Tuesday, Indosat’s advocate David H Siregar argued that Cartje has no clear cause for filing a lawsuit.
During the trial on Tuesday (5/2), David argued that the Court does not actually have jurisdiction to hear this matter.
He explained that the building construction permit is an administrative decision, which falls within the jurisdiction of State Administrative Court, not the Court.
David pointed out the Supreme Court Circular Letter No. 2 of 1991, which stipulates that a party may challenge the issuance of an administrative decision in administrative court, if he/she suffered losses.
“There is no tort [in this case]. Therefore the claim must be filed with the State Administrative Court,” stated David.
He also maintained that Indosat built the tower lawfully by signing a rent agreement with the land owner where the tower was built, which happened to be next to Cartje’s house.
Romy Leo Rinaldo, Cartje’s counsel, responded that Indosat’s defense statement is unclear. The case, according to Romy, is not about legality of the building construction permit, but rather that the development and management of the telecommunication tower by Indosat has resulted in losses suffered by Cartje.
Romy pointed Indosat has violated relevant laws and regulations, particularly on the requirements for the maximum height of a telecommunication tower, which has damaged several part of Cartje’s house, meaning that Indosat committed a tort.
Based on the abovementioned arguments, Romy concluded that the Court is competent to try the case.
(jt/hot)