Press Release Coalition for Fair Conservation

Indigenous Peoples and Three Civil Society Organizations Submit Formal Review Request Related to JR UU KSDAHE to the Constitutional Court

Jakarta, September 19, 2024 – Representatives of Indigenous Peoples communities and civil society organizations submitted a Formal Review to the Constitutional Court regarding the issuance of Law Number 32 of 2024 concerning Amendments to Law Number 5 of 1990 on Conservation of Biological Natural Resources and Their Ecosystems (UU KSDAHE 32/2024) against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

This request was registered by the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI), the People's Coalition for Fisheries Justice (KIARA), and representatives of the Ngkiong Indigenous Peoples, Mikael Ane, with the support of the Coalition for Fair Conservation.

This formal review is conducted because there are issues in the drafting context of UU 32/2024 that do not comply with the provisions of the 1945 Constitution, Law 13/2022 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Legislation, and the Constitutional Court Decision No. 91/PUU-XVIII/2020.

At least three reasons were put forward by the petitioners. First, because it does not meet the principle of clarity of purpose, does not meet the principle of utility and effectiveness, and does not meet the principle of transparency.

According to the Secretary General of the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), Rukka Sombolinggi, the new UU KSDAHE No. 32/2024 is one of the laws that was formally formed without full and effective participation from Indigenous Peoples as a group directly affected by the law.

"Moreover, substantively, this law negates the existence of Indigenous Peoples as subjects in conservation management, even strongly potentially seizing customary territories and criminalizing Indigenous Peoples through the expansion of preservation," said Rukka Sombolinggi.

Meanwhile, according to the Policy Study Manager of the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI), Satrio Manggala, UU 32/2024 formally does not comply with several principles of legislative formation in the provisions of the 1945 Constitution.

The principle of transparency is considered closely related to the process of meaningful participation. Without transparency, there is no meaningful participation. "WALHI has submitted crucial notes in the formulation of the amendment to UU KSDAHE on June 25, 2024, at the DPR RI Building and to this day has not received reasons and clarity on why our inputs were not accommodated and not responded to," said Satrio Manggala.

UU 32/2024 does not consider legal subjects

In the consideration of UU 32/2024, it does not consider legal subjects, namely Indigenous Peoples who exist and live in conservation areas long before UU 32/2024 existed, even long before the Republic of Indonesia was formed. The way and pattern of life of Indigenous Peoples in one area are considered to have managed and utilized sustainably, harmoniously, in balance, and also maintained its sustainability.

"This means that the drafters of UU 32/2024 did not involve the affected parties, as well as parties concerned (having attention and care) about the affairs of Indonesia's biological natural resources and ecosystems," continued Rukka.

In line with this, the Secretary General of the People's Coalition for Fisheries Justice (Secretary General of KIARA), Susan Herawati, mentioned that the lack of meaningful participation from coastal and small island communities affects the non-accommodation of knowledge, culture, and local wisdom of coastal and small island communities in managing and conducting community-based conservation independently.

"This UU KSDAHE also clearly contradicts the constitutional rights of fishermen and coastal communities as stated in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 3 of 2010 which affirms the right to access the sea, the right to manage marine and fisheries resources according to community culture and traditions, and the right to benefit from the management of marine and fisheries resources," explained Susan Herawati.

The formation of UU 32/2024 Does Not Meet the Principle of Utility and Effectiveness especially for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities as legal subjects. This is marked by several substantive problems that will arise and be experienced by Indigenous Peoples or local communities living in and around conservation areas. For example, more potential for criminalization, rights seizure, discrimination, and neglect of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Another highlight from the petitioners is that in UU 32/2024 there is no article regulating Padiatapa (Consent based on prior information without coercion) or known as FPIC (Free, Prior, Informed Consent). Yet FPIC is very important and fundamental to the rights of Indigenous Peoples to agree or disagree with anything concerning their customary territories without coercion.

As a result, this potentially expands land seizure and re-settlement of Indigenous Peoples from designated management/customary areas. The formation of UU 32/2024 ignores the state's obligations in the field of Human Rights (HAM) namely to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights of Indigenous Peoples as regulated in the 1945 Constitution, Law No. 39 of 1999 on Human Rights, and other legislation.

The formation of UU 32/2024 Does Not Meet the Principle of Transparency

As parties who are attentive and care to oversee the Process of Formation of UU 32/2024, the petitioners cannot access the documents of meeting results or the process of discussion of UU 32/2024 and are not found through the DPR website.

The DPR and the government should involve Indigenous Peoples and local communities, as well as civil society organizations as mandated by Law No. 12 of 2011 to sit together to deliberate on the provisions in UU 32/2024. Such involvement is so that the law made can be useful to increase the effectiveness of conservation activities while achieving social and ecological justice that provides benefits for society and the environment.

The petitioners through their coalition have also sent letters to the President, the Speaker of the DPR, and the Speaker of the DPD regarding the rejection of the ratification of UU KSDAHE. However, no response was received at all. This shows and clarifies how the drafters of the law place Indigenous Peoples and local communities as a threat to conservation.

"The drafters of the law should not view Indigenous Peoples and local communities as threats in the implementation of conservation, but rather as main and equal actors who can work together with the government," concluded Rukka.

Based on this, the petitioners and the Coalition for Fair Conservation urge the Constitutional Court to annul UU 32/2024 or at least the Constitutional Court must order the drafters of the law to make improvements to UU KSDAHE and involve Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and parties who have a focus on conservation issues.

***

Coalition for Fair Conservation
Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI), People's Coalition for Fisheries Justice (KIARA), Constitutional Lawyer Viktor Santoso Tandiasa, Greenpeace Indonesia, Indigenous Territory Registration Agency (BRWA), Working Group ICCAs Indonesia (WGII), Association of Indigenous Peoples Advocates of the Archipelago (PPMAN), Sawit Watch, Pusaka Foundation, Participatory Mapping Network (JKPP), Public Interest Lawyer Network (PILNET) Indonesia.

CONTACT:

• Muhammad Arman (AMAN): 0812-1879-1131
• Ermelina Singeretta (PPMAN): 0812-1339-904
• Satrio Kusma Manggala (WALHI): 0811-593-600
• Fikerman Loderico Saragih (KIARA): 0823-6596-7999