Tree Felling Licenses in Indonesia

Is tree felling allowed by regulations? 

Under Forestry Minister Regulation Nomor P.14/Menhut-II/2011 Year 2011 Concerning Timber Utilization Permit (“WUP”), WUP’s holder is entitled to undertake tree felling in accordance with granted permits.  In other words, tree felling shall be allowed as far as WUP is possessed.

Various licenses required

1. Timber Utilization Permit

  WUP is permit to utilize timber and/or non-timber originated from following regions:

1. Production forest which is able to be converted and released (HPK), namely forest that the space is reserved in order to use in development area outside forestry activities
2. Production forest in form of forest area swapping, namely production forest changes and/or limited production forest into non forestry area which is compensated to include the additional area from non-forestry area to forestry area;
3. Utilization of forestry area on production forest or conservation forest with land-use, namely utilization over forestry area partly to other parties in order to development interest outside forestry activities without changing status, allocation and forestry area’s function;
4. Another Area of ​​Use which has been granted allocation permit, namely forestry areal granted under Minister of Forestry Decision concerning forestry areal appointment and province waters or in accordance with Forest Land Use Agreement into non-forestry areal.

Causal Sequence on Environmental License

After the quite long durable grace period, Environmental License (“EL”) has come to light.  Despite of its definition can be found in UU No 32/2009 as “license granted to each person who undertakes business and/or activities which the environmental impact analysis (Amdal) or Environmental Monitoring Efforts Report (UPL) and Environmental Management Efforts Report (UKL) is mandatory in order to protection and environmental management as a prerequisite to obtaining a business license, its implementation should be hold on the government regulation.  Under Government Regulation No. 27 Year 2012 (“PP No 27/2012”), the enigmatic term EL in The Law No.32 Year 2009 Concerning Environmental Protection and Management (“UU No 32/2009”), currently, has not been contemplated any longer.  

EL definitely plays the important impact into the validity of business license.  In other words, business license is possible to be revoked while EL was void as well.  In this condition, the nullification of EL will be a domino effect for validity of business licenses.  

Furthermore, Amdal or UKL-UPL is one of the requirements to obtain EL.  Every business and/or activities which has important impact shall hold Amdal.  The categorization of activities Plan and/or activities which shall be accompanied with Amdal has been stipulated in Annexes Minister for the Environmental Affairs Regulation Number 11 Year 2006, e.g. coal and mining land exceeded 200 Hectare shall require Amdal. Moreover, every business and/or activities which is excluded from the mandatory requirement of Amdal shall provide UKL-UPL

To obtain the EL, each stage has to be completed, as follows:

a. preparation of the Amdal and UKL-UPL;

b. Amdal assessment and examination of UKL-UPL; and

c. Environmental Permit application and its issuance.

Application for EL is submitted accompanied with the submission of Amdal (“PP No. 27/1999”) and RKL-RPL assessment.  Meanwhile, under PP No 27/2012, preparation, inspection and assessment for Amdal, UKL and UPL have been covered.  Thus, the latest regulation concerning Amdal has been declared invalid and its arrangement is integrated in PP No 27/2012.

Afterwards, EL holder shall provide deposit in order to assure the recovery environment function.  However, this obligation is an unclear provision under PP No. 27/2012 due to lack of commentaries.  It assumes that guarantee fund is similar to commitment fee (uang kesungguhan) for Mining Business Permit.  Commitment fee is not used for local or central government but retains in Bank’s account.  It will be return after the entire mining activities is ceased.  Unfortunately, until this regulation is stipulated, it still in unveiled.   

 The Constitution Court Decision to Guarantee Equality Before The Law Principle

Remedies against the decision of pre-trial hearing have been modified by The Constitution Court (CC).  Originally, the pre-trial hearing under article 1 Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) is the authority of court to examine and decide the following grounds:

•  Legal or not the arrest or detention and, at the request of the suspect or his family or the request of the relevant party for the sake of law and justice;
•  Legal or not cessation of the investigation or prosecution at the request of the termination of the relevant party for the sake of law and justice, and;
• Request for compensation or rehabilitation by the suspect or his family or other parties or their proxies which his case is not presented to court.

The petition addressed to article 83 KUHAP subjecting to the remedies against the decision of pre-trial hearing.  Article 83 states that pre-trial hearing’s decision shall not been examined to the appellate court.  However, in paragraph 2 of this article, the decision which declares invalidity of cessation for inquiry/prosecution shall not been process for filing complaints. This article is only allowed for prosecutor to file complaints but not for the petitioner.  The prosecutor is allowed to file complaint if the petition of pre-trial hearing subjecting to validity of the cessation for inquiry/prosecution is granted by the court.

  

The nature of background is that the petitioner was a victim who obtained The Cessation Letter for Inquiry.  Afterwards, he filed complaints to appellate court and the complaint, unfortunately, was denied.     The petitioner prayed for relief that article 83 should be declared null and void.  In the other words, the petitioner ordered that the decision of pre-trial hearing is not allowed to be examined in appellate court. The rationale of his requests is that the article is discriminative and infringes The Constitution, particularly the equality before the law’s principle.   

In its ratio decidendi, CC argued that the article 83 paragraph 2 neither shall reflect the equality between the citizen on law and government nor provide the just legal certainty.  This article has been treated differently between the suspect/plaintiff in one side and the prosecutor in other side in the light of appeal procedure.  This article is not in line with the nature of pre-trial hearing principle to protect the suspect/plaintiff rights in accordance with his dignity and values.

At the end, CC decided that article 83 paragraph 2 infringed with The Constitution and it was declared null and void.          

Kontra Argumentasi dalam Judicial Review Pasal 7 ayat (6) huruf a UU APBN-P Tahun 2012 : 

Seandainya Saya Pemerintah

Bunyi Pasal yang dilakukan Judicial Review :

Pasal 7 ayat (6) UU APBN-P Tahun 2012

Harga jual eceran BBM bersubsidi tidak mengalami kenaikan

Pasal 7 ayat (6) huruf a UU APBN-P Tahun 2012 (selanjutnya disebut “pasal sengketa”)

Pemerintah dapat menyesuaikan harga BBM jika harga rata-rata minyak mentah di Indonesia (ICP) naik atau turun hingga lebih dari 15 persen dalam waktu 6 bulan

Argumentasi :

Argumentasi terhadap pasal sengketa yang layak dikebiri melalui saluran judicial review di MK telah sering muncul di media.  Alasan-alasan tersebut antara lain, pertama, pasal sengketa telah bertentangan dengan pasal 7 ayat (6) UU APBN-P yang sama sekali tidak membolehkan kenaikan BBM bersubsidi, kedua, pasal sengketa cacat hukum dikarenakan bertentangan putusan MK terdahulu soal UU Migas, ketiga, alasan-alasan klise ekonomi atas nama penderitaan rakyat.  Alasan terakhir akan dikecualikan dari argumentasi selanjutnya dikarenakan pembahasannya, menurut saya, perlu menggunakan pisau pendekatan economic analysis of law yang relatif rumit dan belum berkembang di Indonesia. 

Kontra Argumentasi :

Pada kasus pengujian pasal 28 ayat (2) UU Migas No 22/2001 (periksa Putusan No.002/PUU-I/2003), MK dalam ratio decidendi-nya (pertimbangan hukum) menyatakan secara terang dan jelas, “…seharusnya harga BBM dan harga Gas Bumi dalam negeri ditetapkan oleh Pemerintah dengan memperhatikan kepentingan golongan masyarakat tertentu dan mempertimbangkan mekanisme persaingan usaha yang sehat dan wajar”.  Pemerintah telah membuat ketentuan serupa melalui pasal 72 PP No. 30/2009.  Dengan demikian, putusan MK hanyalah menegaskan siapa yang berwenang penuh atas cabang-cabang produksi yang penting bagi negara dan yang menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak dan bukanlah larangan atas penyesuaian harga BBM.

Dengan perkataan lain, acuan harga menurut ICP atau menurut pasar dapat saja diperhatikan, namun tetaplah Pemerintah yang menetapkan harganya.  Sehingga, harga tidak menjadi otomatis naik saat harga pasar naik dikarenakan perekonomian nasional diselenggarakan berdasar atas demokrasi ekonomi dengan prinsip-prinsip dalam Pasal 33 ayat (4) UUD’45.  Pemerintah memegang keleluasaan penuh atas penentuan harga BBM.  Harga pasar hanyalah indikator bukanlah dasar kebijakan utama.  Hal ini dibuktikan dengan frasa “Pemerintah dapat menyesuaikan harga BBM”.  Sehingga penyesuaian harga BBM bukanlah sesuatu yang mutlak harus dilakukan.

Apabila harga beli BBM naik dan Pemerintah dilarang menaikkan harga jual BBM (pada masyarakat) (sebagai catatan, Indonesia kini digolongkan sebagai importir/pembeli minyak, bukan lagi eksportir), kewenangan Pemerintah untuk menetapkan harga BBM sebagaimana dalam rumusan Putusan MK di atas menjadi tidak ada artinya lagi.  Alasannya, kewenangan Pemerintah menetapkan harga hanyalah dimaknai sebagai kebolehan menurunkan harga.  Kewenangan Pemerintah diamputasi dan kehilangan maknanya apabila hanya dikunci dalam pasal 7 ayat (6).  Dengan demikian, menetapkan harga BBM harus diartikan juga menaikkan atau menurunkan harga BBM yang sejalan dengan frasa pasal sengketa: “…jika harga rata-rata ICP naik atau turun jika dimungkinkan...”

 

Lagipula, tidak ada satupun ketentuan dalam UUD’45 pun yang tegas melarang kenaikan harga BBM, sama halnya yang melarang kenaikan harga beras ataupun  harga lainnya yang masuk dalam kategori sandang, papan, pangan.  Tidak ada larangan kenaikan cabang produksi yang penting dan/atau menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak dalam UUD’45.  Sebaliknya, campur tangan Pemerintah dalam kebijakan penentuan harga haruslah menjadi kewenangan yang diutamakan untuk cabang produksi yang penting dan/atau menguasai hajat hidup orang banyak (baca ratio decidendi Putusan MK)

Kesimpulan

MK seharusnya memaknai pasal sengketa tetap dalam kerangka UUD’45, dimana Pemerintah dapat menyesuaikan harga BBM sepanjang harga BBM menjamin prinsip demokrasi ekonomi sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 33 ayat (4) UUD’45.  Dalam menetapkan harga, Pemerintah tidak serta merta menyandarkan pada harga pasar sesuai amanat konstitusi tersebut.

Dengan demikian, pasal 7 ayat (6) harus dibaca bahwa harga jual eceran BBM bersubsidi tidak mengalami kenaikan, jika Pemerintah tidak menyesuaikan harga BBM.  Alasannya, penyesuaian harga BBM dalam UU APBNP adalah alternatif bukanlah imperatif, ditandai dengan kata “dapat” yang secara sempurna memaknai kewenangan Pemerintah untuk menetapkan harga.

 Permits and Approvals on Investment Procedures in Indonesia

1.  Approval Letter for Domestic Investment (SP-PMDN),or Approval Letter of Foreign Direct Investment (SP-PMA).

This  approval letter issued  as a principle approval for making  investment  and  it  will  be used for  arranging  other implementing permits either issued by  central or regional  government.

2. Implementation of the Investment Agreement include:

• Limited Importer Identification Number (issued by BKPM on behalf of the Minister of  Trade). 
• Expatriate Placement Plan/RPTK (issued by BKPM on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration). 
• TA.01 (issued by BKPM on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration). 
• Permit of Foreign Employee Recruitment/ IMTA (issued by BKPM on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Transmigration). 
• Approval/Permission Letter (SP) of Customs of capital goods/raw materials (BKPM on behalf of the Minister for Finance). 
• Article of Association (Ministry of Justice and Human Right). 
• Tax Payer Identification Number/NPWP (Minister of Finance cq. Directorate General of Tax). 
• Limited  Visa Card / KITAS (Ministry of Justice and Human Right cq.  Directorate General of Immigration). 
• Technical Recommendation from Ministry of Agriculture to process business permit in agricultural sectors (plantation, horticulture, food crop, and livestock). 
• Land Rights includes “Land Use Right/HGU” and “Building Use Right/HGB (Land Affair Agency/BPN). 
• Permanent Business Permit (BKPM, process after the company start to produce commercially).

Construction Services Conspiracy in the hand of The Guidelines

In a discussion in Jakarta, in 2011, Executive Director of INDEF (Institute for Development of Economics and Finance) Ahmad Erani said that, in addition to the factor of funding availability, infrastructure development in this country has been weak thus far due to a lack of good governance as well. What has happened in Indonesia, said Erani, is an unhealthy business competition, namely rampant conspiracy in project tenders funded by the state budget (APBN). "The tender winner usually colludes in order to obtain profits that are far above the normal price," he said. He mentioned a number of factors behind the conspiracy. For such example, a limited number of companies so that they can control prices in the market, or, market conditions or public sector tenders that tend to be easy to predict. "They are usually done by easing the regulations for old players and making it difficult for new players," added Erani.

The business practice that may cause unfair competition is tender conspiracy, one of the conducts which is prohibited by The Law No. 5 of Year 1999 (“The Law No.5/1999”).  General principles in tender which necessarily is considered, among others, transparency, respect for money, effective and open competition, fair negotiation, accountability and assessment process, and non-discriminatory.  In line with such, The Law No.5/1999 stipulates the prohibition of tender conspiracy that may be occurred through agreements either in writing or verbal.  The conspiracy involves wide range of behaviors, including the production and or distribution business, activities trade associations, price fixing and auction manipulation between business actors as well as business’ owner

From the perspective of alleged articles being reported, the reports that go to Business Competition Supervisory Commission (“KPPU”) were still dominated by reports about tender conspiracy since 2000 until 2011, i.e. 72% or 169 out of 201 written reports.  In the framework of The Law No.5/1999, conspiracy could be conducted in such manner:

1.      Arranging and/or determining the winner of the tender thus causing unfair business competition.

2.     Obtaining information of their competitor’s business activities classified as company’s secret thus causing unfair business competition.

3.    Hampering production and/or marketing of the goods and/or services of their competitors with the intention to reduce the quantity, quality, and the required delivery punctuality of the goods and/or services offered or supplied in the relevant market.

Legal Due Diligence Procedures for Acquisition: Don’t Buy Pig in a Poke

As nature, Legal Due Diligence (LDD) known as legal audit.  Audit means to data verification, rechecked, or data examination.  In the further, legal audit desires to extend the audit scope, thus, the terms of LDD has been used.  “Due” is in accord with right or appropriate, then “diligence” is persevering determination to perform a task.  In this point, LDD not only aims to cover data verification, but also the critical examination with continually efforts to dig in the important information in the light of conformity data.  The examination itself should be following through. 

Black’s Law Dictionary defines LDD as:

Such a measure of prudence, activity, or assiduity, as is properly to be expected from, and ordinarily exercised by, a reasonable and prudent man under the particular circumstances; not measured by any absolute standard, but depending on the relative facts of the special case.

In acquisition, LDD have a main role in connection with, first, the decision whether to buy the target company with the in depth examination through the relevant tools on LDD.  After we assure to buy, second, in how much price we reasonably buy it.  In simply, more quality the company belongs, more expensive its price.

Prior to acquisition has been made, we have to consider the existence of the company in the register of Minister of law and Human Rights.  Besides, many related requirements and regulations with the specified company’s business activities necessarily to be complied.  For instance, The Law No. 40/2007 concerning Limited Liability Company and The Law No 8/1995 concerning capital market for public company.

Furthermore, in connection with licenses and permits, we shall be aware that company comprises into green vile company and brown vile company.  Green vile company holds licenses and permits, but has not carried out business activity yet.  Not same with Green vile company, brown vile company provides licenses and permits and its activity has been run.

In targeted company, we shall acknowledge its assets.  Gathering all information from audited financial statement is one of method to examine the assets.  However, we will not only attain the assets, but also the liabilities, such as either liability rose from contract (consensual liability) of liability rose from law (Statutory liability).