Suara Papua – November 4, 2024
Jayapura – The struggle by Papuan indigenous people to save their customary forests from the invasion by corporations and the government has become harder after legal efforts reached a dead end with the Supreme Court’s (MA) rejection of the Awyu tribe’s appeal which challenged the environmental feasibility permit issued to the company PT Indo Asiana Lestari (IAL) by the Papua provincial government.
The court’s decision, as per Supreme Court document number 458 K/TUN/LH/2024, was taken at a deliberation meeting of the panel of judges on September 18. The full document was only able to be accessed on November 1.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Hendrikus Franky Woro, an environmental activist from the Awyu tribe with the Coalition to Save Papua’s Customary Forests, expressed his deep disappointment because the Supreme Court appeal by the Awyu indigenous people, which was an effort to defend their customary forests from the expansion of palm oil corporations in Boven Digoel district, South Papua, now seemed to have been vain.
Woro and the Awyu tribe took their appeal to the Supreme Court after the Jayapura State Administrative Court (PTUN) and the Makassar State Administrative High Court (PTTUN) rejected their lawsuit and appeal.
The legal challenge was reasonable considering that the environmental feasibility permit issued by the provincial government for PT IAL was considered illegal and has a huge impact on the customary landowners and their future generations. This is because the palm oil company is operating on 36,094 hectares of land owned by the Woro clan, part of the Awyu tribe.
In a press release on Monday November 4, Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi) Regional Executive Director Maikel Primus Peuki said that the verdict adds to the list of bad news for indigenous peoples and local communities who are fighting in courts against the threat of companies damaging the environment.
Woro’s disappointment, according to Peuki, was also felt by the Coalition to Save Papua’s Customary Forests. Peuki also felt the same because the court’s decision to reject the cassation appeal will make indigenous people’s struggle more difficult.
That is why Peuki regrets the Supreme Court’s ruling which seems to give false power to the company.
“The island of Papua is a customary land owned by more than 200 clans living in the land of Papua. This Supreme Court decision seems to give false power to the company. However, the Awyu indigenous people still have the right to their customary forests that have been with them for generations since they first lived in this customary area”, he said.
Walhi Papua hopes that the permit owned by the company will not eliminate the rights of indigenous peoples to their land, because it is clear that the owners of the customary rights have not relinquished their customary rights to anyone.
“We hope that the public will continue to support the struggle of the Awyu tribe and indigenous peoples throughout Papua who are fighting to defend their customary lands and forests”, said Peuki.
It turns out that one of the three judges who tried the case, Yodi Martono Wahyunadi, issued a dissenting opinion.
One of the important points in the dissenting opinion concerns the 90-day lawsuit deadline, which was previously used as a pretext by the Makassar PTTUN to reject Woro’s appeal. In his considerations, Judge Wahyunadi referred to Article 5 Paragraph (1) of Supreme Court Regulation Number 6/2018 which states that the calculation of the deadline only refers to working days. The deadline calculation should also have included local holidays in Papua province.
But considering substantive justice rather than formal justice, Judge Wahyunadi was of the opinion that the court needed to set aside the deadline provision by carrying out a practical invalidation.
Tigor Gemdita Hutapea, a member of the Save Papua’s Customary Forests advocacy team stated, “From the considerations in the dissenting opinion regarding this deadline, we consider the Supreme Court to be inconsistent in applying the rules they make. Even though the Supreme Court regulation is a guide used by the judiciary internally”.
“This Supreme Court’s ruling does not mean that the object of the lawsuit is correct because two judges did not examine the substance. But one [member of the] panel of judges in their dissenting opinion stated that the issuance the AMDAL [Environmental Impact Analysis] was proven not to have accommodated losses in areas where indigenous peoples live, which have been managed and utilised for generations”, said Hutapea.
In the dissenting opinion Wahyunadi said that the object of the lawsuit, the environmental permit for PT IAL, is clearly contrary the principles in Law Number 32/2009 on Environmental Protection and Management, so it must be annulled. Unfortunately, Judge Wahyunadi lost the vote.
[Translated by James Balowski. The original title of the article was “WALHI Papua Sebut Perjuangan Masyarakat Adat Kian Berat Pasca Putusan MA”.]
————————–
Australia West Papua Association Adelaide 