JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION NUMBER : 77 P/HUM/2019 CONCERNING TESTING OF THE APPLICANT'S OBJECTION TO THE EXISTENCE OF ARTICLE 51 SECTION (2) PP NUMBER 104 OF 2015 CONCERNING PROCEDURES FOR CHANGING THE ALLOCATION AND FUNCTIONS OF FOREST AREA

Hak Uji Materiil (Toetsingrecht)  terhadap Ketentuan Pasal 51 ayat (2) PP Nomor 104 Tahun 2015 Tentang Tata Cara Perubahan Peruntukkan dan Fungsi Kawasan Hutan terhadap Pasal 14 , Pasal 17, Pasal 19, Pasal 29, Pasal 33, Pasal 34, Pasal 40 UU Nomor 5 Tahun 1990 Tentang Konservasi Sumber daya Alam dan Ekosistem, pasal  1 angka 9, Pasal 6, 7, 24 dan 25 UU Nomor 41 Tahun 1999 Tentang Kehutanan, Pasal 5 ayat (2) dan Pasal 23 ayat (1) huruf c dan Pasal 25 ayat (1) huruf c UU Nomor 26 Tahun 2007 Tentang Penataan Ruang. Pada Pertimbangan Hakim menyatakan kegiatan yang diperbolehkan di cagar alam dan selain yang dimaksud dinyatakan bertentangan dengan hukum. Tujuan dari  Penelitian ini untuk menganalisis Pertimbangan Hakim dan Akibat hukum dari Putusan MA No 77/P.HUM/2019 terkait Keberadaan Pasal 51 Ayat (2) PP Nomor 104 Tahun 2015 Tentang Tata Cara Perubahan Peruntukkan dan Fungsi Kawasan Hutan. Jenis Penelitian ini Yuridis Normatif dengan melakukan pendekatan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan, Teori, Kasus. Jenis Bahan hukum menggunakan bahan primer sekunder. Pengumpulan bahan hukum dengan studi pustaka bahan hukum. Teknik Analisa bahan hukum menggunakan telaah dan Argumentatif. Hasil penelitian disimpulkan bahwa Keberadaan ketentuan a quo telah melanggar ketentuan pasal 7 UU Nomor 12 Tahun 2011 Tentang Pembentukkan Peraturan Perundang-Undangan. Ketentuan tersebut menyebabkan berkurang dan/atau rusaknya fungsi utama dari kawasan hutan tersebut. Penyusun Peraturan Perundang-Undangan wajib memeperhatikan segala aspek termasuk didalamnya keutuhan dari fungsi suatu kawasan hutan atau setidaknya meminimalisir dampak kerusakan dari penggunaan suatu kawasan hutan.

Kata Kunci : Putusan Mahkamah Agung, Hak Uji Materiil, Kawasan Hutan

The Right of Material Testing (Toetsingrecht) against the provisions of Article 51 paragraph (2) of PP Number 104 of 2015 concerning Procedures for Changes to the Designation and Function of Forest Areas against Article 14 , Article 17, Article 19, Article 29, Article 33, Article 34, Article 40 of the Law Number 5 of 1990 concerning Conservation of Natural Resources and Ecosystems, Article 1 point 9, Articles 6, 7, 24 and 25 of Law Number 41 of 1999 concerning Forestry, Article 5 paragraph (2) and Article 23 paragraph (1) letter c and Article 25 paragraph (1) letter c of Law Number 26 of 2007 concerning Spatial Planning. In the Judge's Consideration, the activities that are allowed in the nature reserve and other than those referred to are declared contrary to the law. The purpose of this study is to analyze the Judges' Considerations and the legal consequences of the Supreme Court's Decision No. 77/P.HUM/2019 regarding the existence of Article 51 Paragraph (2) of Government Regulation Number 104 of 2015 concerning Procedures for Changes in Designation and Functions of Forest Areas. This type of research is normative juridical by approaching the legislation, theory, case. Types of legal materials using secondary primary materials. Collection of legal materials by means of a literature study of legal materials. Techniques for analyzing legal materials use analysis and arguments. The results of the study concluded that the existence of the a quo provisions has violated the provisions of Article 7 of Law Number 12 of 2011 concerning the Establishment of Legislation. This provision causes the reduction and/or destruction of the main function of the forest area. Legislators must pay attention to all aspects including the integrity of the function of a forest area or at least minimize the impact of damage from the use of a forest area.

Keywords: Supreme Court Decision, Right to Test Material, Forest Area