Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami 
Ada Pertanyaan? Hubungi Kami Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
The Constitutional has Court commenced its judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources (“Water Resource Law”) on Wednesday.
The judicial review petition was filed by several prominent individuals and civil society groups. The judicial review application covers Article 6 (2)-(3), Article 7, Article 8 (1), Article 9 (1), Article 11 (3), Article 38, Article 40 (4), and Article 49 of the Water Resources Law.
The applicants are arguing that these articles unlawfully open up privatization and commercialization of water resources to private companies.
“The judicial review is in response to the current phenomena because water has become an economic commodity utilized by private companies, while it should be managed by the Government,” said Syaiful Bakhri, lawyer for the applicants.
According to Syaiful, the move towards privatization is crystal clear under Articles 9 (1), 11 (3),and 40 (4). This movement commenced, said Syaiful, after the Constitutional Court rendered its Decision No. 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 and Decision No. 008/PUU-III/2005 in which it recognized the role of several private sector companies in water business.
Syaiful is arguing that these private sector entities have misinterpreted these decisions which has led to unlawful privatization. This is evident in Article 1 (9) of Government Regulation No. 16 of 2005 on the Development of Drinking Water Supply Systems (“2005 Government Regulation”) which allows private companies to establish drinking water supply facilities.
“However, according to Article 40 (2) of the Water Resources Law, the establishment of such facilities is the responsibility of Regional or the Central Government,” claims Syaiful.
During the proceedings, Harjono, member of the panel of judges, questioned the applicant’s argument that raises the issue of the 2005 Government Regulation.
Harjono reminded the applicant that the Constitutional Court is only authorized to review a law that conflicts with the 1945 Constitution, while judicial review on lower level Government regulations must be made to the Supreme Court.
“The applicant’s petition must emphasize and outline the conflict between the Water Resources Law and the 1945 Constitution rather than going into details of the 2005 Government Regulation,” said Harjono.
(hot/kc)
Agus Sahbani, Robert Sidauruk
The Constitutional has Court commenced its judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2004 on Water Resources (“Water Resource Law”) on Wednesday.
The judicial review petition was filed by several prominent individuals and civil society groups. The judicial review application covers Article 6 (2)-(3), Article 7, Article 8 (1), Article 9 (1), Article 11 (3), Article 38, Article 40 (4), and Article 49 of the Water Resources Law.
The applicants are arguing that these articles unlawfully open up privatization and commercialization of water resources to private companies.
“The judicial review is in response to the current phenomena because water has become an economic commodity utilized by private companies, while it should be managed by the Government,” said Syaiful Bakhri, lawyer for the applicants.
According to Syaiful, the move towards privatization is crystal clear under Articles 9 (1), 11 (3),and 40 (4). This movement commenced, said Syaiful, after the Constitutional Court rendered its Decision No. 058-059-060-063/PUU-II/2004 and Decision No. 008/PUU-III/2005 in which it recognized the role of several private sector companies in water business.
Syaiful is arguing that these private sector entities have misinterpreted these decisions which has led to unlawful privatization. This is evident in Article 1 (9) of Government Regulation No. 16 of 2005 on the Development of Drinking Water Supply Systems (“2005 Government Regulation”) which allows private companies to establish drinking water supply facilities.
“However, according to Article 40 (2) of the Water Resources Law, the establishment of such facilities is the responsibility of Regional or the Central Government,” claims Syaiful.
During the proceedings, Harjono, member of the panel of judges, questioned the applicant’s argument that raises the issue of the 2005 Government Regulation.
Harjono reminded the applicant that the Constitutional Court is only authorized to review a law that conflicts with the 1945 Constitution, while judicial review on lower level Government regulations must be made to the Supreme Court.
“The applicant’s petition must emphasize and outline the conflict between the Water Resources Law and the 1945 Constitution rather than going into details of the 2005 Government Regulation,” said Harjono.
(hot/kc)