AKHH

LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

JAKARTA, MAY 2, 2018

Dear

Panel of Judges Case No. 413 / Pdt.G / 2017 / PN.Jkt.Pst

Bungur Besar Raya Street No. 24, 26, 28 Gunung Sahari, Central Jakarta

SUBJECT: DEFENDANT ANSWER II

Dear Sirs, Please allow us. Stephen Harianto. SH LLM Hendry M. Hendrawan, SH, and Yanuar Aditya
Wijanarko, SH Advocates at Law Firm ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO & HERMANTO, based in Chase Plaza
Lt. 18, Jend. Sudirman StreetKav. 21 Jakarta 12920, in this matter pursuant to Special Power of Attorney
dated January 18, 2018 (attached), acting for and on behalf of PT Suri Tani Pemuka, having its address at
Wisma Millenia Lt. 6, M.T Haryono StreetKav. 16, South Jakarta, which for the sake of this case shall
hereafter be referred to as "ACCUSED II submits an Answer and responds to the Claim filed by:

Yayasan Pecinta Danau Toba, having its address at Jalan Mosque Bendungan No. 10-11, RTOO1 RW007
Cawang III East Jakarta 13630, hereinafter shall be referred to as "PLAINTIFF"

The arguments of the answer to ACCUSED II are as follows:

ACCUSED II EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL THE ARGUMENTS OF ACCUSERTHE POLICY IS PURPOSED IN THE
FOREIGN, UNLESS THAN THE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED THINGS

ACCUSED II PLEASE TO THE NOBLE JUDICIAL ASSEMBLY FOR DISAPPOINTING POETRY, AND WHOLE
PROPERTY WHICH IS OPINION AND NON-YURIZED FROM A COUNTRY WHICH IS NOT RELATED TO THE
CIRCULATION OF ACTIONS AGAINST THE LAW OF INFORMATION ON THE ENVIRONMENT POLLUTION IS
SUBMITTED IN THESE COUNTRIES
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

IN EXCEPTION

ACCUSER DOES NOT HAVE A LEGAL STANDING TO SUBMIT THIS STANDARD BECAUSE NOT FULFILLING
THE PROVISIONS ARTICLE 92 ACT NO. 32 YEAR 2009 ON THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE
ENVIRONMENT

1. The provisions of Article 92 of Law no. 32 of 2009 on Environmental Protection and

Management (Law No. 32/2009) regulates as follows:
a) In the context of the implementation of environmental protection and environmental
responsibility, the environmental organization shall be entitled to file a lawsuit for the
sake of environmental conservation;
b) The right to file a lawsuit is limited to the demand for certain actions without any claim
of compensation, except for real costs or expenses
c) Environmental organizations may file a lawsuit if they meet the following requirements:
I. in the form of legal entity;
II. affirming in its articles of association that the organization was established for
the benefit of the preservation of environmental functions: and
III. Has conducted concrete activities in accordance with its basic budget for a
minimum of 2 (two) years.
2. Referring to the provision of Article 92 of Law no. 32/2009 above, the Plaintiff must first prove
that the Plaintiff has a Legal Standing to file a Claim because it has complied with the provisions
of Article 92, especially paragraph 3 point b and c Law no. 32/1999
However, in its Plaintiff, the Plaintiff does not fully quote the contents of its articles of
association in order to comply with the provisions of Article 92 paragraph 3 point b Law no.
32/1999. The Plaintiff in point 6 page 22 of the Lawsuit even stated that "That Plaintiff is a Legal
Entity named Yayasan Danau Toba which is an organization, which is one of the activities
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

Primarily in the field of humanity is to improve the quality of the environment

However, when referring to the Plaintiff's articles of association submitted in advance of the
trial on April 17, 2018, it is stated as follows:

Purpose and objectives

Article 2

Based on the noble ideals to participate selflessly and non-profit for the Foundation has a
purpose in social, humanitarian and religious

Activity
To achieve the aims and objectives of the Foundation mentioned above, the Foundation will
carry out the following activities:
A. In the social fields are:
1) Establish or participate in the construction of educational places;
2) Conducting all pathways and types of education ranging from pre-school level to
higher education;
3) Establish scientific institutions for research, assessment and development of
science and technology;
4) Conducting and organizing places of kurses and places of skill including
establishing workshops in general and education and latthan / human resources
development;
5) Conduct research, investigation, feasibility studies for agriculture and
plantations that can absorb labor
6) Providing training, courses, skills for the Community,
B. In the field of humanity is:
In the field of environment is to improve the quality of the environment
C. In the field of Religion those are: Establish houses of worship, religious teaching, youth
camping, youth spiritual coaching.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

From the above Lawsuit quotation, it is clear that the Plaintiff's organization for humanitarian
activities and NOT focused or specifically established for the sake of preservation of
environmental functions as required in absolute terms in Article 92 paragraph point b Law no.
32/1999. Therefore, the provisions of Article 92 paragraph 3 points are FULLY DETAILED by the
Plaintiff. Established b Law no. This 32/1999 alone can not be done.

3. In addition, the Plaintiff's organization also does NOT MEET the provisions of Article 92
paragraph 3 point c of Law no. 32/1999. All activities described by the Plaintiff in points 7 pages
22 to 41 of the Lawsuit, there is no activity directly related to the actual activities for the
preservation of environmental functions in Lake Toba and no activities directly felt by the
environment (including the people who live around Lake Toba) which as a form of
environmental conservation.
a) Activities 2014
It should be first noted that it refers to the Plaintiff's own admission in point 5 (d) page
22 of the Lawsuit, that the new Plaintiff's organization was formally established its Deed
of Establishment on May 6, 2015 through the License of Lake Toba License Foundation.
No.5 made by Notary Bonar Sihombing, SH.

The Plaintiff's organization also received approval from the Minister of Justice and
Human Rights on May 22, 2015.

Therefore, any activity of the Plaintiff in 2014 (which is only one activity) and in 2015
before May 22, 2015 could not legally be accounted for as an organizational activity

The Plaintiff's activity in 2014 itself is a meeting of church and community leaders in
Toba conducted in Jakarta in the form of discussion forum / seminar. This activity is
clearly NOT a REAL ACTIVITY for the preservation of environmental functions, because it
is still a discussion forum that does not have real application in Lake Toba.
b) Activities 2015
The activities of the Plaintiff in 2015 before May 22, 2015 which could not be
categorized as activities of the organization because they have not obtained approval
from the Minister of Law and Human Rights are the activities of hearings with the
Minister of Justice and Human Rights, hearings of the Archbishop of Medan and PGI of
North Sumatra Region for christmas activities.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

in Lake Toba, Audience with UKI Rector, informal meeting with Ephorus HKBP, and
Seminar on Customary Law and Land Management in Jakarta

While the activities of the Plaintiff after May 22, 2015 also did not exist significantly in
Lake Toba or related to the preservation of environmental functions as required by
Article 92 paragraph 3 point b Law no. 32/2009. The Plaintiff's activities are more of a
socialization through audiences for Love Lake Toba Movement activities to various
parties such as churches, Baktiraja Sub-district, Ephorus GKPS and HKBP, HKI, to Pelita
Kasih radio station in Jakarta, Yayasan Nommensen Sigumpar, Menko Maritim , Bupati
Tobasa, Siborong-borong Police Chief, Sekwan and SKPD Tobasa District, Kadis
Kehutanan North Sumatera Provincial Government, Vice Regent Dairi, Telkomsel, Village
Head of Parapat Sub-district. In addition, the Plaintiffs made seminars and launches of
Cinta Toba Love Movement in Jakarta, a joint prayer activity, and Press Conference.

Activity Movement Love Lake Toba on December 27-30, 2015 itself was a tour activity,
culinary feast, cultural festivals and creative works, consecrated work and seed sowing
and tree planting. So the activities of Love Movement Lake Toba were not in focus for
environmental conservation activities but the movement to drive tourism in Lake Toba.

Even if this activity is perceived as a real environmental conservation activity, non quod,
then this is the only real action carried out by the Plaintiff in Lake Toba to this day. While
other activities are more of a conceptual activity that has not been followed up by any
real activities in Lake Toba so that the Plaintiff's activities clearly do not meet the
qualifications as set forth in Article 92 paragraph 3 point c of Law no. 32/1999.

c) Activities 2016
The activities cited by Plaintiffs for the year 2016 are even MORE PROVE again that the
Plaintiff's activities are not for the preservation of environmental functions but other
social activities for the people around Lake Toba.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

The Plaintiff describes that its activities in 2016 are a discussion forum for "Saving the
Batak Traditional House", attending "Sadar Wisata dan Kessi Sapta Pesona" activities,
forming litigation and non-litigation teams, meeting with farmers and creative industry
players attending cultural night events, with Sunboat UG company for the use of solar-
powered boats, a European road show, the second GCDT, which are includes art,
culture, culinary festivals, ulos performances, social gathering, rafting trips and
Christmas celebrations.
So during the year 2016 there is absolutely no real activity from the Plaintiff for the
environmental conservation function directly in Lake Toba
Based on the foregoing descriptions sourced from the data submitted by the Plaintiff in
its Lawsuit, it is PROVEN that the Plaintiff has no Legal Standing to file this lawsuit as
required in absolute terms by Article 92 in particular paragraph 3 point b and c of Law
no. 32/2009
Therefore, Defendant II appealed to the Honorable Panel of Judges to declare the
Plaintiffs Unacceptable Pledge (niet onvantkelijke verklaard) because the Plaintiff has no
Legal Standing as required by Article 92 paragraph 3 point b and c Law no. 32/2009
4. Referral to the decision of the Central Information Commission granting the request of the
Yayayan Pecinta Danau Toba to request information on the permits owned by Defendant I to
BKPM as described in point 9 of the Claim, as well as relevant to the Legal Standing of the
Plaintiff in filing the Claim. UU no. 32/2009 has specifically required the fulfillment of all the
provisions of Article Law no. 32/2009 for organizations wishing to file an environmental lawsuit.
While all references to the court rulings described by the Plaintiff in point 10 pages 42-43 of the
Lawsuit on Legal Standing, there is also NO ONE which relates directly to the Plaintiff's legal
standing to represent environmental interests. There is not a single civil court ruling that has
had a permanent legal force that has acknowledged the Legal Standing of the Plaintiff in the
environmental field as required by Article 92 paragraph 3 point 32/2009. b and c Law no.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

The court decisions refer only to the recognition of the existence of Legal Standing for some
environmental organizations which are deemed to have fulfilled the provisions of Article 92 of
Law no. 32/2009 when they filed a lawsuit.
Therefore, all of the quotations of the court decision cited by the Plaintiff are "irrelevant" to the
Plaintiff's Legal Standing position in order to protect the interests of environmental
conservation, so it is fitting that the references are disregarded by the Honorable Panel of
Judges.

EXCEPTIO PLURIUM LITIS CONSORTIUM {LOSS OF PARTIES}

ACTUALLY SUBJECTED BY PLACE TO BE UNDERSTANDED (NIET ONVANTKELLUKEVERKLAARD)

BECAUSE OF ACTIVITIES IN TOBA LAKE AND POLLUTANT ELEMENTS TO LAKE TOBA AS AN
ACCOMPANY PARTY ALL THE PARTY WHO DOES MUCH MORE ELEMENTS- AK FOLLOWING

5. In its Plaintiff the Plaintiff argues that the actions of Defendant I and the Defendants of Lake
Toba water. It is seen that the second attempt has caused contamination of the clear qualities of
the Plaintiffs to ONLY blame the Defendants I and Defendant Il who are the companies engaged
in the fishery field of Keramba Jaring Apung (“ KJA "), whereas factually it can be easily seen and
observed that there are many parties who do activities both from communities and companies
in Lake Toba that donate pollutant elements into Lake Toba both in the form of community
activities around domestic waste, pig farming, transportation, farming, hotel, and other social
activities.
6. The results of research by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry ("KLHK) in 2014 published
as a book in 2015 in title of the Lake Toba Rescue Movement (" Germadan Toba “); identified
that the decreasing quality of Lake Toba water were caused by:
I. domestic waste;
II. waste from various jetis of land utilization in the form of residue of fertilizer, pesticide,
herbicide and eroded material;
III. livestock waste; and
IV. Fishery aquaculture waste.
V. (Vide Germadan Toba pages 37-44, Exhibit T2-1).
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

Even the Plaintiff also acknowledges in his lawsuit on page 89 that mentions:
"The Environment Agency (BLH) of North Sumatera Province has conducted inventory of control
and waste study that flowed into Lake Toba from the inventory result found that Lake Toba
water pollution source can come from industry, domestic, settlement, agriculture, animal
husbandry and also from bulk rain and based on the results of the BLH study, it was detected
that the largest source of waste came from Kerambah Jaring Apung
Regardless of the statement of BLH North Sumatra that it is detected (which means it must be
proven by a more comprehensive review) the largest source of waste comes from KJA, where
Defendant II argues in detail in the Case Principal below, but BLT North Sumatra itself admits
that there are many contributing factors from source of water pollution of Lake Toba

7. Based on the indisputable FACT that there are other parties who do activities which according to
Germadan Toba and also the results of research BLH North Sumatra are the parties who
contribute elements pollutant into Lake Toba, it is very unfair and tends to be zalim if only the
Defendant I and Defendant II are required to be responsible for environmental restoration
(penguin) activities, since if ONLY the Defendant I and the Defendant II are conducting fishery
activities in Lake Toba, it is very likely that the water quality of Lake Toba will not be in the same
condition as claimed by the Plaintiff .
In the Case of Principal Case below, Defendant II will prove that his activities really pay attention
to the environmental sustainability of Lake Toba, so even if there has been contamination of
Lake Toba water, non quod, it is very likely that the cause of missed Quality Standard Class 1 it is
not caused by the inclination made by the Defendant II
8. Legal expert M. Yahya Harahap, S.H. (in his book entitled "Civil Procedure Law on Claims,
Foreclosures, Verdict and Court Judgments",third edition, 2005, pages 112 to 113) states that a
lack of party lawsuit is a lawsuit containing a formal defect that causes the lawsuit to be
unacceptable niet ontvankelijke verklaard, as follows:
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

Another form of error in persona is called plurium litis consortium. Parties serving as
Plaintiffs of the Convention or withdrawn as Defendants of the Convention:

 Incomplete, there are still people who must act as Plaintiffs of the Konpensi or withdraw
Corruption Defendant;
 Therefore, the lawsuit contains an error in persona in the form of plurium litis consortium, in
the sense of a lawsuit filed against it. "

Any form of error contained in the lawsuit, both have legal counsel:

 The lawsuit is deemed to be ineligible, therefore the suit is qualified to contain formal
deformity;
 Further effect, the lawsuit must be declared unacceptable (niet ontvankelijke verklaard)
9. The Plaintiff's lawsuit that lacking parties is a lawsuit that contrary to procedural law so it should not
be accepted. This is consistent with the permanent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Indonesia CMAHK "), among others, as follows:
I. Decision of the Supreme Court of RINo. 151 K / Sip / 1972 dated May 13, 1975
"That the Constitutional Plaintiff's Lawsuit should also be addressed to another person, since
this lawsuit is incomplete only to be sued for a) the lawsuit must be declared unacceptable."
II. Supreme Court Decision No. RI. 1424.K / Sip / 1975 dated 8 June 1976
The lawsuit is declared unacceptable, because it has a formal error regarding the party to be
sued, but has not been sued so that the suit is not incomplete
III. Supreme Court Decision No. RI. 2438 K / Sip / 1980 dated March 22, 1982
"The lawsuit must be declared unacceptable, as not all heirs participate as a party to the
Case.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

IV. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No.2872 K / Pdt / 1998 dated
December 29, 1998

"The third party closely related to the Lawsuit should be withdrawn as one of the parties to
the Lawsuit, whereas the lawsuit contains a legal defect" Plurium Litis Consorsium. "

10. Based on the foregoing explanation, since other parties clearly related directly to the Plaintiff's
lawsuit subject but are not being challenged, it is clear that the Plaintiff's claim is lack of parties and
therefore must be declared unacceptable (niet onvantkelijkeverklaard)

UNAUTHORIZED LIABILITY PLAN (OBSCUUR LIBEL) BECAUSE IT’S NOT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THE
PROPORTION, ROLE AND RESPONSIBLE ACCUSED I AND ACCUSED II AND OTHER RELATED PARTIES
IN THESE COUNTRIES.

Even If ASSUMED THAT REALLY HAPPENED POLLUTION OF LAKE TOBA A RESULT OF DEFENDANT I
(The fact remains NO) THEN IS NOT FAIR IF THE DEFENDANT II MUST sequentially liable THE
DEFENDANT I WITHOUT ACCOUNTABILITY OF PARTIES OTHER participating AKTIRITAS THAT
DONATES POLLUTANT TO ECOSYSTEM LAKE TOBA

11. Based on empirical facts that easily can be observed, there are dozens maybe even hundreds of
community activities conducted in Lake Toba. Related to KJA fishery activities, besides Defendant I
and Defendant II there are also KJA fishery activities conducted by local people around Lake Toba.
If the assumption that KJA fishery activity donate pollutant to Lake Toba environment, non quod,
hence KJA fishery activity conducted by community also donate pollutant which bigger than
pollutant donated by Defendant II.
Therefore, considering that the activities carried out by Defendant II use environmentally friendly
technology, then if there is indeed a pollutant produced by its activities in the form of phospor
residues, quod non, the amount is definitely not significant to be able to degrade the
environmental quality of Lake Toba as argued by the Plaintiff.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

12. In addition to local community activities in the form of KJA fishery, it is a fact notoir that around
Lake Toba there are hotel business activities that clearly produce liquid waste and the waste is
also thrown into the ecosystem of Lake Toba. There are also pig and pigranian farming activities
that also produce polluants that exacerbate the environmental quality of Lake Toba.

However, the Plaintiff does not in any way hold the accountable parties who are empirically
clear to produce waste disposal into the Lake Toba ecosystem

13. The failure or inability of the Plaintiff to explain the participation and contribution of other
parties who dispose of waste to the ecosystem of Lake Toba obviously make the lawsuit
obscure, because the Scientist clearly is not able to prove the proportion and scope of the
Defendant II because the Plaintiff failed to include all those who dispose of waste into the Toba
Fund ecosystem.

It is unfair and unfair that only Defendants I and RESPONDENT II are responsible for the
degradation of Lake Toba's water quality which obviously holds much of the waste disposed of
by the hospitality, livestock and agriculture sectors as outlined in the Germadan Toba report.

14. Even in developed countries such as the United States, when the type and scale of activities
undertaken by business actors can be known, adopted a system of accountability known as
proportionate liability (proportional responsibility). In the case that in the United States has
become a kind of landmark decision that is Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company
v United States, 129.S.Ct.1870,1882-83 (2009), the Supreme Court of the United States decides
that the Railway Company is only responsible for 9% of the cost of environmental recovery. In its
judgment, the Supreme Court declared:

"There is a reasonable basis for determining the contribution of each cause to a single harm."
Under the circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court found that it was reasonable for the
district court to use the size of the leased parade and he duration of the lease as the starting
point for its analysis ...”
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

In Indonesia:
Terdapat dasar yang beralasan untuk menentukan kontribusi dari setiap penyebab dari satu
kerugian. Berdasarkan keadaan dari kasus tersebut, Mahkamah Agung mendapatkan bahwa
adalah beralasan untuk pengadilan distrik menggunakan ukuran dari bidang tanah yang disewa
serta lamanya masa sewa sebagai titik awal analisanya

15. Based on the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States as a comparison, it is clear that
the Plaintiff's lawsuit is obscure and tends to be zalim, because even if it is true that Defendant II
has contributed pollutant elements into the Lake Toba ecosystem, (though the fact is not), the
Plaintiff the obligation to prove the proportion of the responsibility of the Defendant II in
comparison with the responsibilities of Defendant I and other parties which also contributed to
the decreasing water quality of Lake Toba.

The Plaintiff's failure to prove the responsibility of the Defendant II makes his lawsuit vague, and
therefore this lawsuit is fitting for the invalidity not acceptable (niet onvantkelijke verklaard)

IN THE PRINCIPAL CASE

Previously Defendant I appealed to the Honorable Mals that all the arguments relating to the facts
presented in the Exception section, also please be deemed to apply mutatis mutandis to the Principal
Section of this Case.

In the Principal Case of the Defendant I will not respond to all of the Plaintiff's nostalgic and irrelevant
arguments to verify whether or not the Defendant II has caused pollution or degradation of
environmental quality of Lake Toba.

Defendant II firmly MAGICIFES that Defendant II has caused environmental pollution and / or
environmental degradation of Lake Toba.

Referring to the provisions of Indonesian civil procedure law, namely the provisions of Article 163 HIR
and Article 1865 of the Criminal Code, each of which states:

"Those who say he has a right, or an act to strengthen his right, or to deny the rights of others, another
must prove the existence of that right or the existence of the incident”
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

"Anyone who argues that a has a right, or to uphold his own rights or deny any right of another person,
refers to an event, is required to prove the existence of such right or event"

The Plaintiff shall bear the burden of proof to prove the truth of his proposition that:
I. Before Defendant II conducted activities in Lake Toba Lake Toba environmental quality in
good condition;
II. After Defendant II engages in Lake Toba activities, environmental pollution or
environmental degradation of Lake Toba occurs; and
III. The pollution or degradation of the environmental quality of Dana Toba is directly CAUSED
by the activities undertaken by Defendant I, or in juridical technical terms there is a CASE
RELATIONSHIP between Lake Toba environmental pollution and activities carried out by
Defendant II.

The application of the two articles mentioned above, particularly concerning the application of the law
of substantiation of proof to these parties, is also in line with the opinion of former Supreme Justice Mr.
M. Yahya Harahap, SH, in his book "Civil Procedure Law on Claims, Trials, Custody, Verification and
Judgment of Courts", Sinar Grafika Publisher, page 530 states.

1. What Should be Proven is a Positive Thing

Something is said to be positive, if it contains facts, or whether it contains events or events. For
example, the plaintiff argues that the raffle terminates the contract in pledge. In the lawsuit
there is a positive fact or event in the form of contract termination by the defendant. Therefore
it must be proved, and the obligatory burden of proof is the plaintiff. "(In bold to emphasize)

More clearly, on page 524, M. Yahya Harahap, SH, also says:

"On that note the affirmation of Supreme Court Decision No. 3164 KPdu1983, that the claimant did not
succeed in proving the argument of the lawsuit, whereas the plaintiff is the party to be obliged to prove
the argument of the lawsuit, the plaintiff fails to prove his argument .case the plaintiff is unable to prove
the argument of his lawsuit , it is considered excessive to charge and consider the proof of the
defendant .According to the latter, in the case of the plaintiffs proving the argument of the lawsuit
which was sacrificed to him, is deemed no longer necessary.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

Burden the defendant to prove his rebuttal. "(In bold to emphasize.)

Therefore, if the Plaintiff is unable to prove the argument of the Lawsuit as described above, then by law
the Plaintiff's Lawsuit must be rejected by the Court. In this case Defendant II is convinced that the
Plaintiff WILL NOT BE ABLE to prove the arguments of the Lawsuit.

Meanwhile, even though the party sued by Defendant II did not bear the burden of proof, but
Defendant Il as described below will be able to prove that he did not pollute Dan T'oba, or at least it will
prove that even if Lake Toba environmental pollution, then it has happened before the Defendant II
committed activities in Toba Lake, until NO KAUSAL RELATIONSHIP between the existing pollution in
Lake Toba and the activities of Defendant II.

IN DOING ACTIVITIES, DEFENDANT II NOT CAUSE ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION as argued by the

PLAINTIFF.

DEFENDANT II USING FEED FISH (NATURAL) ARE FLOATING AND APPLY TECHNOLOGY
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY CALLED TO FEED BROADCASTER (SPREAD OF FEED) SO FEED FLOATING
and dispersed TO AVOID ANY RESIDUAL AND THINGS THIS IS PROVEN THROUGH THE RESULT OF
SUCOFINDO LABORATORY RESULT THAT MADE BY THEIR OWNERSHIP THAT AT THE ACCUSED LOCATION
II, A PHOSPHEDICAL CONDITION SUBJECTED AS A POLLUTANT ELEMENTS SUBJECTED BY ACCUSED II
STILL UNDER QUALITY CLASS BASED CLASS.

1. Defendant II strongly denied that he carried out environmental pollution in KJA's fishery activities. As
will be proven by facts and expert information in the verification session, Defendant II uses floating feed
and feeding is done with environmentally friendly technology called feed broadcaster. Therefore, the
feed used by Defendant I will be consumed by the fish, so that even if there is feed residue, the amount
will be very insignificant, so it is not possible to cause environmental pollution.So the plaintiff must
prove in advance trial that fish feed in kja defendant II was always leave a 20% of feed cause pollution
2. Article 1 paragraph (14) of Law No.32 / 2009 defines environmental pollution as: "to enter or be
included living creatures, substances, energies, and / or other components into the environment by
human activities, thus exceeding the standard of living that has been established"
In its claim, the Plaintiff argues that the pellet or feed used by the Defendant caused environmental
pollution in the form of phosphor residue produced by 20 % of the pellet residue not eaten by the fish.
Defendant II hereby declares the argument of the Plaintiff to prove the argument of this lawsuit, given
the technology of feed broadcaster used and the type of feed which is a floating feed, almost all feed is
eaten by the fish so that even if there is residue, non quod, the amount is not significant and it is not
possible until 20% of the amount of feed is propagated.
3. Even if the Plaintiff refers to the results of the Sucofindo research as the reference of the Plaintiff itself,
in the Analyst Report it is mentioned that the content of Posphat as P result is 0.18 while the maximum
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

standard is 0.2 (Vide, Sucofindo Report). From the Sucofindo Report referred to by this Plaintiff, it is
clear that if any feed residues produced by Defendant II, quod non, then the feed residue "only"
contribute phosphorus with the amount of 0.18 which is still below the maximum threshold for the
phosphorus element.
However, at least from the evidence in the form of a Sucofindo research report referred by the Plaintiff
itself clearly proves that the Defendant II does not perform environmental pollution since the resulting
residue is still below the specified threshold as mentioned in the Sucofindo report.
On the other hand, in carrying out its operations, Defendant II has obtained:
I. Global Aquaculture Alliance Best Aquaculture Practices (BAP) certification;
II. Certificate of Good Fish Cultivation from Ministry of Marine and Fisheries with Excellent Value;
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

to prove that the operation of the Defendant II has been carried out in good governance of the
CCA.
AS RECOGNIZED BY THE PLAINTIFF in his complaint OWN THAT DEFENDANT II NEW OPERATION
SINCE 2014.THE PLAINTIFF ALSO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CONDITION OF WATER LAKE TOBA
at least BEEN CONTAMINATED SINCE 2012. THE PLAINTIFF IN RECOGNITION OF COURSE HAVE
PROVEN THAT THE DEFENDANT II is NOT CAUSE POLLUTION CAUSED argued PLAINTIFF HAPPEN
TO THE LAKE. IF THE PURPOSE OF THE POLICY IS THAT THE CURRENT CONDITION OF TOBA TO
BE COMPLETELY COMPARED IN 2012, THEN COULD HAVE TO PROVE IT THAT WASHING THE
WASTE OF TOBA WATER BEHAVIOR IN DIRECTLY ACCOMPANYED BY ACTIVITIES II. DEFENDANT II
SURE THAT THE PLAINTIFF SHALL NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN causal
worsening TOBA LAKE WATER QUALITY OF THE DEFENDANT II, WHEREAS factually COMMUNITY
ACTIVITIES INCLUDING MANY ACTIVITIES HOSPITALITY, FISHING PEOPLE, LIVESTOCK AND
AGRICULTURE DONATES POLLUTANTKE LAKE TOBA.
4. As has been said in the Exception section above, then the FACT of so many parties who do activities in
Lake Toba so far are among others:
I. Community activities that wash, bathe and dispose of household waste to Lake Toba
(domestic waste);
II. Hospitality activities that produce and dispose of its waste to Lake Toba;
III. livestock activities that produce and dispose of its waste to Lake Toba;
IV. Agricultural activities that use chemical fertilizers and dispose of their waste into Lake
Toba;
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

V. fishery activities managed by communities where data in 2012 it self reached 8,428 units
spread over 51 locations, while in 2012 Defendant I had 484 units of KJA and Defendant I
was not even operational (source: Book of Germadan Page 13).
Community activities as described above that together contribute to the pollution that occurred
in Lake Toba
5. In its Plaintiff, the Plaintiff basically merely argues that: in carrying out the KJA fishery activities,
Defendant I and Defendant II require feed in the form of pellets. The plaintiff states that every day
approximately 250 tons of pellet feed is fed into Lake Toba, and almost 20% is not eaten by fish and
settles into the bottom of the lake. However, the Plaintiff did not describe the number of pellets used by
Defendant II and how did it measure that 20% of the pellets inserted by the Defendant into the lake
were not eaten by the fish?
6. As outlined above, in conducting its activities, Defendant I had applied environmentally friendly
technology to ensure that there are not many pellet residues that are not consumed by fish. Defendant I
had implemented a broadcast feed technology where fish feeding is done to provide floating feed
spread to the cage. This floating fish feed disc bar by seeing the fish feed that directly eaten by fish and
feeding will be stopped immediately when the floating fish feed is not much to eat again by the fish. It
should be noted, however, that the remaining floating fish feed will still float for a week or so, so the
fact is that a floating fish feed that is not directly eaten during feeding will eventually be eaten by the
fish before the next feeding schedule.
With the broadcaster feed technology using floating fish feed, the Plaintiff's argument that the
contamination of Lake Toba water occurs because the inedible fish feed will sink, causing the increase of
phosphorus content is completely untrue, because:
a. The fish feed used by the Defendant II is a floating fish feed which is spread by feed broadcaster
technology;
b. Inedible fish feed will remain afloat and feeding is given by looking at the amount of feed eaten by
the fish;
c. The results of the Socufindo research referred by the Plaintiff II itself actually proves that the
phosphorus content in the KJA of the Defendant is below the permissible threshold

Based on the above description, the 20% stated by the Plaintiff is a clear and false number, and the
Plaintiff shall bear the burden of proof to prove the truth of its argument.

7. The Plaintiff argues as an indisputable fact that PT Sucofindo (Persero) has conducted data retrieval,
processing and analysis of the water quality of Lake Toba. Furthermore, the plaintiffs mentioned the
certificate of Sucofindo analysis result which was supposedly taken at the location of Defendant II
activity as proof that Defendant II has conducted environmental pollution of Lake Toba.

From the standpoint of evidentiary law for environmental cases, the Plaintiff's argument is KIRIRU and
contains logical apostasy called irrelevant conclusion. Even if it is assumed that when doing the sampling
of Sucofindo doing it with the correct sampling technique and the results of the analysis is also true,
quod non, then it only proves that the place where Sucofindo did the sampling has exceeded the quality
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

standard of its environment, and the parameter made by the Plaintiff to conclude the presence of
contamination is just BOD, COD, and Fecal Coliform levels.

However, it does NOT PROVIDE that Defendant II has polluted the environment, since Sucofindo has
never examined how many pollutants contributed by the Defendant II and how many pollutants
contributed by other parties such as the hospitality industry, fishery, and agriculture which also dispose
of its waste into the Lake Toba ecosystem as mentioned in the Germadan Toba report.

Moreover, the Plaintiff himself argues that the activities of the Defendant II, which he considers to cause
environmental pollution, are residues of fish feed (pellets) containing phosphorus, and about 20% of the
amount of feed being distributed. In this case, Defendant II was able to prove that the pollutant in
phosphor form at the location of its activities was only 0.18 which was still below the maximum
threshold in Sucofindo's report mentioned 0.2
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

8. The Plaintiff's action assumes that because of the sampling location is conducted at the location of the
Defendant II's activities; it is automatically Defendant I that must be held accountable, as the waters of
Lake Toba DO NOT HAVE AREAS LIMITS. The water contained in Lake Toba accommodates pollutants
from anywhere, and the water moves wherever it depends on the current and the wind that blows on it.

In the evidencing session of the trial, Defendant II will prove that the water quality of Lake Toba will not
decrease ONLY IF ACCUSED II conducts activities in Lake Toba, considering that even if the fish feed
(pellets) used by Defendant II contains phosphorus, the sum would not be significant to cause a
decrease in environmental quality. This has been proven through the Sucofindo report referred by the
Plaintiff that said the phosphorus level in the location of the Defendant II is still below the permitted
threshold.

The above descriptions also at once deny the Plaintiff's argument stating that the activities of the
Defendant II have resulted in the violation of North Sumatra Governor Regulation no. 1 of 2009
concerning Water Quality Standards of Lake Toba jo. Appendix 1 of Government Regulation no. 82 of
2001 on the Management of Water Quality and Water Pollution Control where the parameters of Lake
Toba water is not in accordance with the parameters of first class water quality standards. The Plaintiff's
argument once again was also argument which contains a logical error of irrelevant conclusion
(irrelevant conclusion)

As long as the Plaintiff can not prove in advance the trial with valid evidence and the evidence can
clearly prove that the drop in quality of first class water of Lake Toba is only caused by the activities of
Defendant I and the Defendant II, it is fitting that this argument is denied and ruled out by Honorable
Panel of Judges

9. In addition, actually KJA fish farming (of course including KJA owned by the community) is not the
biggest contributor in the pollution process of Lake Toba. The Plaintiff refers to the results of a study by
the Regional Environment Agency (DLHD) of North Sumatra Province in 2016 showing that 1,835.1 tons
of P have entered the lake compared to contributions from other waste contributors such as livestock,
agriculture, etc. which are only 608.6 tons of P. calculation is the KJA fish farming conducted by the
community, Defendant I and Defendant II are considered the greatest contribution in polluting the
waters of Lake Toba.
However, Defendant II appealed to the Honorable Panel of Judges that the results of the DLHD study
have NEVER measured the amount of polluted T-P load from the river that enters Lake Toba. Referring
to the research results of the Capture Fisheries Research Center on 15-19 August 2017 at 23 stations in
the lake and 25 stations in the river entering the lake toba shows that the content of TP in Lake Toba
ranged from 0.13-0.77 mgP / L Hal which is surprisingly from the results of this study is that the TP
content of the river flow ranges from 0.450-11.300 mg / L with an average of 2.936 mgP / L. Based on
LTEMP (2013) the water discharge entering Lake Toba is 1,014,06 m3 / sec and rain of 461,43 m3 / sec
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

Based on the above data, it can be roughly calculated that the volume of river water entering Lake Toba
for 1 year is 1,014,06 x 60 x 60 x 60 x 24 x 365 32,925,476,160 m3. If the average of 1 liter of river water
contains 2.936 mgP then the total P that goes into Lake Toba in 1 year is 2.936 x (32.925.476.160 x
100096.669.198.005.760 mgP or equivalent to 96.669,198 tons P

From the calculation results can be clearly illustrated that the T-P input load from the river water into
Lake Toba turns out to be 53 TIMES BIGGER than the T-P load generated from the cultivation of fish KJA.
While the pollution load carried by the river water itself comes from various sources including domestic
waste produced by the population

Based on the above description, Defendant II wants to prove that the reference used by the Plaintiff to
prove that KJA fish farming is not actually the biggest contributor in the alleged pollution of Lake Toba
argued by the Plaintiff to Defendant I and Defendant II (which should also be directed to the community
of KJA owners )

10. The Plaintiff's argument in point E.13 page 14 also shows the Plaintiff's inconsistency in exposing the
lawsuit's position. In point 13 where the Plaintiff refers to a paper created by Lukman and published by
the Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI) in 2013 the Plaintiff argues that fish farming activities by
means of the Floating Net Cage in Lake Toba (in this case postulated the activities undertaken by
Defendant I and Defendant II, without mentioning the existence of KJA belonging to the community)
resulted in the rise of phytoplankton in the waters of Lake Toba so that TOWN INTEREST TOURS
INTEREST

From the Plaintiff's argument, the Plaintiff himself is inconsistent about whether he wants to fight for
the end of pollution in Lake Toba or wants to increase tourism? Though its own tourism activities will
certainly also contribute continuously to the decrease of water quality of Lake Toba.

11. On point 14 of page 15 of the Lawsuit, the Plaintiff himself has even acknowledged that the fishing
industry is not the single largest contributor in Lake Toba pollution. The Plaintiff refers to the North
Sumatra Provincial Environment Status Report of 2014, issued by the Provincial Government of North
Sumatra which essentially states that the highest BOD is found in the fishing and livestock areas.

The Plaintiff's plaintiff further reinforces the unclear Exception as described by the Defendant in the
Exception section above, also proves clearly that the Plaintiff is inconsistent in postulating that KJA is the
main and biggest contributor in the pollution of Lake Toba. FACT, because the North Sumatra Provincial
Government itself has made research and recognize that the farm also contribute greatly to the
pollution of Lake Toba.

12. The Defendant firmly rejected the Plaintiff's argument in point 21 of page 20. The lawsuit stated that the
existence of Defendant II did not give any benefit to the people and regions either through employment
or Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). This statement is statements that is not appropriate facts and
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

even tend to be arrogant for denying the truth. Defendant II has never stated that SCR program or job
creation conducted by Defendant Il is contributing very much to society and region. However, the
statement of the Plaintiffs which states that Defendant II is not contributing at all is also a misleading
statement

Since running operations in 2014 until December 2017, at least the Defendant II has absorbed a
workforce of a population of about 624 people. In addition, the Defendant has also conducted activities
that provide economic impacts or benefits for the surrounding communities, where activities in 2017
alone include

a) providing CSR support for the improvement of the church of Sonom and the Church of Ecumenical
which was conducted in March 2017 in which Defendant II provided material assistance for the
building of the church;
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

b) CSR Greening activities of Lake Toba DTA conducted in Pematang Tambun Raya Village in April to
July 2017, whereas Defendant II also cooperated with PT Inhutani IV and Tambun Raya villagers in
the implementation of the reforestation;
c) School Cleaning CSR activities in April 2017 at SDN 091436 Tambun Raya, SDN 091437 Hutamula
and SDN 091404 Parbaholan, where Defendants Il provided hygiene kits;
d) CSR School Assistance CSR activities in July 2017 at SDN 091436 Tambun Raya where Defendant II
built school toilets;
e) School Bag distribution activities in July 2017 at SDN 091436 Tambun Raya, SDN 091437 Hutamula,
SDN 091404 Parbaholan, and SDN 095172 Saragiras;
f) The activities of Embung Production in June-July 2017;
g) Nutrition Campaign activities in April 2017 for elementary and community students of Tambun
Raya and parts of Tigaras
h) training of liquid fertilizer from dead fish waste to the community as much as 3 (three) times in
2016;
i) Sustainable fish cultivation training 3 (three) times in 2016;
j) And many other activities that the Defendant II will prove on the evidentiary process before the
trial.
13. Based on all description of Defendant II's denial as described above, Defendant II strongly denied that
Defendant II had committed violation against Article 69 paragraph a of Law no. 32/2009 and the
obligation to restore environmental functions as regulated in Article 52 paragraph (I) and (2)

Moreover, the Plaintiff clearly has incorrectly used the formula for the recovery of environmental
functions using the provisions of Article 5 paragraph 2 of the Minister of Home Affairs Regulation no. 23
of 2006 on Technical Guidelines and Procedures for Regulating Drinking Water Tariffs at Municipal
Water Companies, whereas Plaintiffs calculate all the water volume of Lake Toba with drinking water
base rates.

Is the Plaintiff’s intention the Defendants and Defendant I asked to replace the damages of Toba Lake by
replacing all the water with drinking water??

Logically simple way of calculation is obviously very unreasonable considering

a) Lake Toba water lme is 256.2 km3 and traverses several regencies of North Sumatera Province
and is used by many local people for daily activities that produce domestic waste as well as
livelihood activities such as fisheries, livestock and agriculture;
b) Lake Toba's sprinklers are used for various types of activities which contribute to the pollution
that has occurred (including tourism activities), but all parties using Lake Toba waters are not
required to participate in the burden and only demand the responsibility of Defendants I and
Defendant II to replace all water Lake Toba;
c) The activities of Defendant II are only centered in one area of water with an area of t - km3, but
are required to be responsible for the entire waters of Lake Toba.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

Therefore, it is logically simple that the way in which the Plaintiff's calculations are clearly illogical and
should be disregarded by the Honorable Panel of Judges.

14. In addition, Defendant II will prove that the water quality of Lake Toba is still qualified to be used as raw
drinking water, because through the filtration process done by the Defendant II in its CSR program, the
people around Lake Toba have been enjoying clean water worth consumption. This program was
inaugurated on April 10, 2018 by the Head of Environment Agency of North Sumatra Province This can
be proven through the test conducted by Ministry of Health in Jakarta stating that clean water from
filtration done by Defendant II is a decent clean water consumption. It also proves that de facto, Lake
Toba water still has qualification as raw material of drinking water or raw material of class 1 water

From this fact, it is clear that the defendant II not conduct polluting environment Lake Toba so Lake
water Toba can not be used as raw materials drinking water; or if true degradation Lake water Toba,
quod non, the defendant II is not caused of the occurrence of it so that the elements of causality not at
all proven in terms of related to the defendant II

15. About the application decision necessarily (uitvoerbaar bij voorraad) proposed by the plaintiff, the
defendant II found the request is not supported by the proof of the early enough
It is above also in accordance with the opinion of retnowulan sutantio, bachelor of law and Iskandar
oeripkartawinata, bachelor of law in his book "the law of civil procedure in theory and practice" which
concluded that due to its nature to be carried out immediately, decisions necessarily be subject to terms
that must be met for granting request decision uitvoerbaar bij voorraad as provided in section 180 hir.
Article 180 hir set that the requirement for granted a decision that is necessarily are as follows:
a. The lawsuit is based on a rights base in the form of an authentic deed;
b. Is based on a recognized or recognized deed under which a verdict is awarded verstek; Is based
on a recognized or recognized deed under which a verdict is awarded verstek;
c. Based on a court ruling that has permanent legal force
16. In addition, under the Circular Letter of the Supreme Court ("SEMA No. 3 of 2000, the Supreme Court
has explicitly ordered the Chief Justice of the District and the Chief Justice of the Religious Courts to
consider, observe and comply with the conditions that must be met before granting the demands
Decision as well as Merta as described in Article 180 (1) of the HIR Furthermore, the Supreme Court
gives instructions to the Judges not to impose the verdict immediately, except in the following matters:
a. The lawsuit is based on authentic evidence or a handwritten letter which is not denied the truth
of its contents and signatures, which the Law does not have the power of evidence
b. A lawsuit on accounts receivable whose amount is certain and not denied.
c. Lawsuit on land leases, houses, warehouses and others, in which the lease relationship has been
exhausted, or the Charterers have proven to neglect their obligations as good tenants.
d. The Principal Issues concerning the demands for the distribution of marital property (gono-gini)
after the decision regarding the Divorce Lawsuit have permanent legal power.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

e. The granting of a provisional Lawsuit, with clear and clear legal considerations and fulfilling
Article 332 of Rv
f. A lawsuit based on a decision that has obtained permanent legal force (in kracht van gewijsde)
and has a relationship to the proposed Claim subject matter.
g. The subject matter of the dispute concerning bezitsrecht
h. It is required that the guarantee be given equal value to the value of the goods / object of
execution, so as not to cause harm to the other party, if in the future the decision of the Court
of First Instance is overturned. This provision is reaffirmed by the issuance of SEMA No. 4 of
2001 that without such guarantees there should be no implementation of the verdict
immediately.
17. Pursuant to Article 180 HIR jo SEMA No. 3 Year 2000 jo SEMA No. 4 of 2001 and if it is associated with
the Plaintiff's Plaintiff, it is clear that the request of the Plaintiff's ruling is not appropriate and
inconsistent with Article 180 HIR jo SEMA no. 3 Year 2000 jo SEMA No. 4 of 2001, as required by Article
180 HIR jo SEMA No. 3 Year 2000 jo SEMA No. 4 of 2001, none have been and had been fulfilled by the
Plaintiff
18. Based on the above description, it is appropriate and appropriate for Defendant I hereby appeal with
respect to the Panel of Judges who examines and adjudicates this case not to grant the request of the
immediate verdict petitioned by the Plaintiff in its suitability.
19. The claimant's confiscation claim (conversatoir beslag) of the Plaintiff should be rejected because it does
not meet the requirements to be fulfilled for the validation of a confiscation petition (conversatori
beslag) as set forth in Article 227 paragraph (1) Herziene Inlandsch Reglement ("HIR")
20. Legal basis application Sita guarantee is the provisions of article 227 paragraph (1) hir stating:
"If there is a reasonable suspect that a person who owes before the decision is made to him, or in the
case of a decision imposed on him, has not been executed, attempts to embezzle or transport his goods,
either fixed or fixed, with the intention of removing the item from the collector debt, then the chairman,
upon the letter of request entered for it, by the person concerned, may order that the goods be
confiscated shall safeguard the right of the person who requests it and shall be informed that he shall
appear before the first trial to come from the district court for advance its demands and confirm it. "
21. There is the doctrine of lawyer Ny. Retnowulan Sutantio, S.H. and Iskandar Oeripkartawinata, S.H., in his
Civil Procedure Law in Theory of Darn Practice, Eighth Printing, Publisher CV Mandar Madju, Bandung,
1997, page 100, stating that the application of the provisions of Article 227 paragraph (1) HIR must meet
the following requirements
a. There should be a reasonable suspicion that a person who owes before a judgment is to be
massaged or executed to seek reason to embezzle or run off his goods;
b. The confiscated goods are the goods of the affected person, meaning they do not belong to the
PLAIN
c. An application shall be filed with the Head of the District Court examining the case;
d. An application is filed in written
e. Confidently guaranteed can be placed either on movable or immovable goods.
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

Furthermore there are other opinions that add the above conditions, namely the legal expert
Yahya Harahap, S.H. in his book entitled Problems and Implementation of Sita Guarantees,
Conservatoir Beslag, Publisher Pustaka, Bandung, 1990, page 36, which states that the minimum
limit of a state deemed to be worthy to legalize a presupposition is:
a) The existence of facts that support the presupposition;
b) Or at least there are clues that justify the presupposition;
c) Facts or guidelines should be reasonable.
Based on the foregoing description, then according to the law of the Plaintiff must be able to
prove the existence of a reasonably strong presupposition. Meanwhile, the fact that Defendant
II is still operational and it is not possible to move its KJA operations from the current location.
In addition, since the Plaintiff in this case is also unable to prove the fulfillment of the
requirements as described above, the Plaintiff's Application of Claims filed by the Plaintiff shall
be denied. Based on the foregoing description, then according to the law of the Plaintiff must be
able to prove the existence of a reasonably strong presupposition. Meanwhile, the fact that
Defendant II is still operational and it is not possible to move its KJA operations from the current
location. In addition, since the Plaintiff in this case is also unable to prove the fulfillment of the
requirements as described above, the Plaintiff's Application of Claims filed by the Plaintiff shall
be denied.
22. The provision of Section 606 of the Regime op de Rechtsvordering ("Rv") states that the demand for
forced money (dwangsom) can only be granted against a Claim that requires something other than a
demand for payment of a sum of money
The permanent jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia corroborates
the above provisions, including the following:
a) The Supreme Court Decision No. 791K / Sip / 1972 dated February 26, 1973 "Forced
money does not apply to measures to pay the money.
b) Supreme Court RI No. 307K / Sip / 1976 dated 7 December 1976 "The demand for forced
money / chwangsom does not apply to actions to pay the money Supreme Court RI No.
307K / Sip / 1976 dated 7 December 1976 "The demand for forced money / chwangsom
does not apply to actions to pay the money
23. In addition, the provisions of the Dutch RV regarding the requirement of forced money (awangsom)
adopted by Rv Indonesia also apply in the judicial system in Indonesia which can be seen in the
consideration of the Supreme Court Decision No. RI. 1172 Pdt / 2005 dated January 30, 2006, as follows:
However, regarding the penalty of payment of fines of Rp 100,000 each if the Defendant of the
Convention fails to enforce the judgment, it shall be null and void, since in essence the penalty shall
constitute a penalty for paksaldwangsom fee pursuant to Article 611 a (A) the last sentence B.Rv, the
institution of forced money can not be applied in a verdict containing the dictum of punishment to pay
some money, because the penalty to pay such sums can always be realized for example with the effort
of execution).
 AKHH
LAWYER
ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO

Article 61a paragraph (1) of the last sentence B.Rv regulates as follows:
"... In fact forced money can not be imposed in the case of punishment for payment of money"
Based on the above explanation, it is evident that the demands of forced (dwangsom) money from
Plaintiffs contradict provisions of law and applicable jurisprudence. Therefore, it is right for the
Honorable Panel of Judges to refuse the demands of compulsory (dwangsom) money from the Plaintiff.
Based on the explanations accompanied by the above legal bases, then all of the plaintiffs’ arguments
are completely unlawful. Therefore, it is reasonable and lawful if the Panel of Judges who examines and
decides this case to refuse all claims of the Plaintiff or at least declare this Lawsuit unacceptable (niet
ovankelijke verklaard).
Therefore, based on the juridical facts described above, Defendant II hereby requests with respect that
the Central Jakarta District Court is pleased to decide:
I. DISCLAIMS all claims of the Plaintiff or at least states that it is unacceptable (Niet
Onvantkelijke Verklaard);
II. CLAIMING the Plaintiff to pay the entire cost of this case.

Or, if the Central Jakarta District Court cq. The Honorable Panel of Judges had another opinion,
Defendant II begs with all humility to be willing to take the verdict as fair as possible (ex aequo et
bono).

Respect of Defendant's Defendant II,

ADNAN KELANA HARYANTO DAN HERMANTO