38 Heads of Families (KK) who inhabit the area around IKN admit that they have never been involved in the process of making the IKN Law.
A resident of the Paser Balik Tribe, an indigenous tribe in North Penajam Paser (PPU), Yati Dahlia, filed a lawsuit to the Constitutional Court against Law Number 3 of 2022 concerning the State Capital (IKN).
The reason is, Yati and 38 heads of families (KK) who live in the area around IKN have never been involved in the process of making the IKN Law.
Yati filed a lawsuit with several other applicant figures such as the General Chairperson of PP Muhammadiyah, Busyro Muqoddas, the Alliance of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago (AMAN), and the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (WALHI).
"Dahlia's residence with 83 other families is only six kilometers from the zero point of the IKN [and] has never been involved and has never been invited to communicate by the government regarding the transfer of IKN," said attorney Ermelina Singerata in a court session, Monday (25/4).
He revealed that Yati and 38 other families were worried that they would be moved from their residences for IKN needs.
According to him, residents are reluctant to be moved or relocated because they do not want to start a new life and be separated from their neighbors and relatives.
"Dahlia and other residents also don't want to be deprived of their history and identity as the Balik tribe," said Erneta.
Moreover, after the IKN Law was officially passed, local residents in the IKN area, including the Balik people, were not allowed to take care of their land certificates.
"This fact shows that the IKN Law does not provide legal protection for people living in the IKN area," said Erneta.
In fact, the process of drafting the law should involve parties directly affected by the transfer of IKN such as Yati and 38 other families.
"The government should prioritize the principle of FPIC (Free, Prior, Informed, Consent) in the decision-making process for IKN transfers, drafting laws and ratifying the IKN Law," he explained.
The plaintiffs demanded that the Constitutional Court declare that the process of drafting the IKN Law was contrary to the 1945 Constitution so that it did not have binding legal force.
The reason is, the drafting process is discussed within 42 days by the DPR and the government. If the DPR recess period is not counted, then the IKN Law will only be discussed in 17 days.
The reason is, the plaintiffs question the preparation of the IKN Law which is considered not to meet the three prerequisites for community participation. One of them is the right to be heard and the right to be considered. (cnnindo)
