Menguatkan Hak Masyarakat Adat Atas Hutan Adat (Studi Putusan MK Nomor 35/ PUU-X/2012)

If the Government is always consistent to ensure the rights of indigenous  people over ulayat forest, of course there will be no legislation which is contrary to the constitution, because the constitution had always guaranteed it. The Decision of Constitutional Court Number 35/PUU-X/2012 which decl...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Faiq Tobroni
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: The Registrar and Secretariat General of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia 2016-05-01
Series:Jurnal Konstitusi
Subjects:
Online Access:https://jurnalkonstitusi.mkri.id/index.php/jk/article/view/113
_version_ 1797900765993369600
author Faiq Tobroni
author_facet Faiq Tobroni
author_sort Faiq Tobroni
collection DOAJ
description If the Government is always consistent to ensure the rights of indigenous  people over ulayat forest, of course there will be no legislation which is contrary to the constitution, because the constitution had always guaranteed it. The Decision of Constitutional Court Number 35/PUU-X/2012 which declares that Article 1 point 6, Article 4  paragraph  (3),  article  5  paragraph  (1),  paragraph  (2), paragraph (3) of Law 41/1999 on Forestry unconstitutional shows  that  there is inconsistency in regulating indigenous forest. In the perspective of human rights, the articles have a spirit of protection of  indigenous  peoples’  rights over ulayat forest which is repressive derogable in nature. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court decision has the spirit of progressive derogable protection. The first spirit means that because the state could derogate the recognition of ulayat forest if it is incompatible with the development of society and contrary to the principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, then the ulayat forest should be seen as the state forest. In the contrary, the next spirit means that although the state could derogate the recognition based on the preceeding requirements, the ulayat forest should be defined as ulayat forests. The first spirit   is a repressive one because it aims at subordinating ulayat forests in the name of state forests. Meanwhile, the progressive spirit has the character of liberation and empowerment, it aims at removing the term of ulayat forests from state forests.
first_indexed 2024-04-10T08:51:15Z
format Article
id doaj.art-6702791485984b698ba35fe776e75dca
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1829-7706
2548-1657
language English
last_indexed 2024-04-10T08:51:15Z
publishDate 2016-05-01
publisher The Registrar and Secretariat General of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia
record_format Article
series Jurnal Konstitusi
spelling doaj.art-6702791485984b698ba35fe776e75dca2023-02-22T04:12:42ZengThe Registrar and Secretariat General of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of IndonesiaJurnal Konstitusi1829-77062548-16572016-05-0110310.31078/jk1035113Menguatkan Hak Masyarakat Adat Atas Hutan Adat (Studi Putusan MK Nomor 35/ PUU-X/2012)Faiq Tobroni0Pusat Studi Hukum dan Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Jl. Raya Yogya-Wonosari KM 8 Yogyakarta If the Government is always consistent to ensure the rights of indigenous  people over ulayat forest, of course there will be no legislation which is contrary to the constitution, because the constitution had always guaranteed it. The Decision of Constitutional Court Number 35/PUU-X/2012 which declares that Article 1 point 6, Article 4  paragraph  (3),  article  5  paragraph  (1),  paragraph  (2), paragraph (3) of Law 41/1999 on Forestry unconstitutional shows  that  there is inconsistency in regulating indigenous forest. In the perspective of human rights, the articles have a spirit of protection of  indigenous  peoples’  rights over ulayat forest which is repressive derogable in nature. Meanwhile, the Constitutional Court decision has the spirit of progressive derogable protection. The first spirit means that because the state could derogate the recognition of ulayat forest if it is incompatible with the development of society and contrary to the principles of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, then the ulayat forest should be seen as the state forest. In the contrary, the next spirit means that although the state could derogate the recognition based on the preceeding requirements, the ulayat forest should be defined as ulayat forests. The first spirit   is a repressive one because it aims at subordinating ulayat forests in the name of state forests. Meanwhile, the progressive spirit has the character of liberation and empowerment, it aims at removing the term of ulayat forests from state forests. https://jurnalkonstitusi.mkri.id/index.php/jk/article/view/113The Right of Indigenous People to Indigenous ForestConstitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012Law No. 41/1999
spellingShingle Faiq Tobroni
Menguatkan Hak Masyarakat Adat Atas Hutan Adat (Studi Putusan MK Nomor 35/ PUU-X/2012)
Jurnal Konstitusi
The Right of Indigenous People to Indigenous Forest
Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012
Law No. 41/1999
title Menguatkan Hak Masyarakat Adat Atas Hutan Adat (Studi Putusan MK Nomor 35/ PUU-X/2012)
title_full Menguatkan Hak Masyarakat Adat Atas Hutan Adat (Studi Putusan MK Nomor 35/ PUU-X/2012)
title_fullStr Menguatkan Hak Masyarakat Adat Atas Hutan Adat (Studi Putusan MK Nomor 35/ PUU-X/2012)
title_full_unstemmed Menguatkan Hak Masyarakat Adat Atas Hutan Adat (Studi Putusan MK Nomor 35/ PUU-X/2012)
title_short Menguatkan Hak Masyarakat Adat Atas Hutan Adat (Studi Putusan MK Nomor 35/ PUU-X/2012)
title_sort menguatkan hak masyarakat adat atas hutan adat studi putusan mk nomor 35 puu x 2012
topic The Right of Indigenous People to Indigenous Forest
Constitutional Court Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012
Law No. 41/1999
url https://jurnalkonstitusi.mkri.id/index.php/jk/article/view/113
work_keys_str_mv AT faiqtobroni menguatkanhakmasyarakatadatatashutanadatstudiputusanmknomor35puux2012