The Constitutional Court Rejects The Lawsuit Of Riau Islands Residents Regarding Stopping National Strategic Projects In Rempang

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) stated that it could not accept the lawsuit of residents of the Riau Islands (Kepri) regarding the judicial review of Law Number 2 of 2012 concerning Land Procurement for Development for Public Interest related to Rempang.

"Declaring that the petitioners' petition cannot be accepted," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo in a hearing reading the verdict of Case Number 137/PUU-XXI/2023 in Courtroom 2nd Floor, Building I of the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Wednesday 29 November, was confiscated by Antara.

The petitioners in the case were residents of Batam City Indra Afgha Anjani and residents of Bintan Regency Amrin Esarey. The two Riau Islands residents gave power to the 'People's Movement to Save Rempang'.

The petitioner submitted a petitum in the supervision, namely asking the Constitutional Court to declare that it would stop the National Strategic Project of Rempang Eco City.

Meanwhile, in the subject matter of the case, the applicant requests that the entire law being sued be declared unconstitutional and asks to stop the National Strategic Project of Rempang Eco City.

The Constitutional Court considers that the request to stop the National Strategic Project of Rempang Eco City is an unusual petitum if applied to the petitum in the subject matter of the case.

"Moreover, the petitum a quo has been applied for in the provision petition, thus making the petitioners' petition unclear or vague," said Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah reading out the Constitutional Court's considerations.

In addition, the Constitutional Court also considered the arguments of the applicants unclear. Guntur Hamzah said that none of the petitioners' arguments were able to convince the Constitutional Court because it was not structured and systematic.

The court concluded that the legal position, principal application, and petitum of the applicant were unclear, thus making the application submitted unclear or vague (obscuur).

"The petitioners do not have the legal standing to apply for a quo, the petitioners' petition is unclear or vague or obscur and is not considered further," Suhartoyo said reading the conclusion.