Subject : Exception and Defendant's Answer V

Attachment : Power of attorney

Dear

Chairman of the Central Jakarta District Court

Cq. Chief Judge of Case

No. 413 / PDTG / 2017 / PN-JKT.PST

In Jakarta

With respect,

The undersigned:

Regent simalungun, seat in pamatang Kingdom district Kingdom

The district simalungun, in the case in represented by j.r. Saragih.

In this case authorize it

1. Name : FRANKY F. PURDA, SH, MH

NIP : 198105142006041004

Position : Head of Legal Division of Setda. Simalungun Regency

Address / Place of residence pamatang Raya District Raya Kab. Simalungun

Citizenship : Indonesia

2. Name : ANITA SITINJAK, SH

Nip : 198003052009032009

Position : Headbub. Legal Aid Setda. Simalungun Regency

Residential Address Pematang Raya Kecamatan Raya Kab Simalungun

Citizenship : Indonesian

3. Name : RICHARDO SINAGA, SH

Nip : 198508042015051002

Position : Staff Legal Division of Setda. Simalungun Regency

address / residence Parnatang Raya District Raya Kab. Simalungun

Citizenship : Indonesian
Respectively as the team's attorney local government simalungun good jointly and severally based power
of attorney number 503/138 / 17.4 / 2017 in accordance with Regent decree simalungun number
18845/8153 / 1.1.4 / 2017 (named as "defendant-V")

In this case, let our pass the answers to suit the plaintiff in the case number 413 / pdt.g / 2017 / district
court-jkt.pst, as follows:

1. In the exception

As for the arguments exception we are as follows:

A. About the authority of the absolute check, judge and decided case aquo
1) That the plaintiff's not meet the elements of the authority of the absolute exccptic Van
onbeveogheid), the district court Central Jakarta do not have the authority to hear the defendant
V, where the defendant V domiciled in kabupatern simalungun, Sumatra utera. Semcntara deeds
legal done defendant V also be in the district simalungun, should the plaintiff filed eugatan to
defendant V in court negerl simalungun.
2) That in addition, therefore, the defendant's more than (1) one, which each position and domisii
the law of the defendant and object dispute is in the North Sumatra, though, and even with the
reason is based on the article 118 (2) hir stated that: "if the defendant's more than one person,
and they don't stay in the scope of judicial one was also, the demands of the addressed to the
chairman of the district court in a place to stay Saleh a defendant than the defendant who dipilh
by the plaintiff .." and However, as appropriate and have been required article 118 of paragraph
3) hir stated that "... if the demands of the goods tctap, then the demands of it incorporated to
the chairman of the district court that in the area located goods..", Then according to the law is
legitimate and based if the demands of / or lawsuit case aquo was supposed to be addressed / or
addressed in the district court simalungun and / or the district court balige and / or the district
court field.
3) That if and which case linked to the location and the position of the law of the object of law filed
a lawsuit case aquo, which case the object case aquo is about / or related Toba Lake, then if an
when connected with-article 153-hir-of-examination etempat (trial examination of the local)
should and should be done by the Noble Nan honored judges and connected with the principle of
the general court mudan, simple and fast, then it should lawsuit case aquo addressed / or
addressed in the district court simalungun and / or the district court balige and / or in the district
court field
B. Of lawsuits plaintiff's not clear / or blurred (obscuur libel)
1) That as written clearly, about and firmly about lawsuit case aquo as written "lawsuit
environmental organization", linked to all content editor of the posita lawsuit case aquo of
halamam 5 stars (five) 'preambule' linked to Roman numerals II (two) in the subject matter on
page 20 (Twenty) linked to figure 2 (two) on petitum lawsuit in the main cause as its content
written, "said deed defendant I and defendant fact sheet in terms of doing business activities of
the field of fish with kerambah net apung..etc Up to an Act of water pollution Toba Lake".
 2) That in connection with the above description, clear and firm that between about lawsuit aquo
plaintiff connected with posita lawsuit and linked to petitum lawsuit there is no each other linkage
/ or correspondence, so legitimate and under legal claims so obviously is lawsuit is not clear / or
blurred (obscuur libel, hence the legitimate and based lawsuit such must be rejected or at least
stated unacceptable niet ontvankelijke verklaar)
3) That as written clearly, firm and light in figure 14 petitum lawsuit case aquo plaintiff on page 70,
as the content written, "stated legitimate and valuable Sita guarantee that the proposed plaintiff
in this case", connected with the contents of posita lawsuit on page 67 figure 57 written "that in
order to ensure the lawsuit aquo not be futile (illusoir) please kindly ... erlebih first put Sita
guarantee (conservatoir beslaag) to the property
Property of defendant I and defendant II which is still within the Plaintiff's data collection is an
obscure / obscure lawsuit because according to law and norm connected with-SEMA (Circular
Letter-Supreme Court-about-and-in-case the application of Sita Jaminan (Conservotoir Beslaag)
must be clear, complete, firm and bright object of law which became laying Sita Guarantee
(Conservatoir Beslaag) who applied for it.
C. ABOUT POLICY LIABILITY PLAN (PLURIUM LITIS CONSORTIUM)
1) That Born and establishment of PT, Aquafarm Nusantara Cq. Branch Office (Defendant), as well
as with PT. Suri Tani Pemuka (Defendant I) to become a limited liability company is not necessarily
arbitrarily born and stood by the mechanisms and procedures set forth in the rules of legislation
and laws applicable in the legal order in the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia.
2) That long before birth and establishment of PT. Aquafarm Nusantara Cq Branch Office (Defendant,
as well as PT Suri Tani Pemuka Tergadat l) becomes a limited liability company originating from
investment (inclusion of investment), is closely related to the first through the Ministry of Industry
and Trade of the Republic of Indonesia Ca. Investment Coordinating Board (BKPM), so that
through all the processes and mechanisms based on the Rules and Regulations of the way of entry
of such investment into the territory of the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, then
Investasl (Investment) becomes legitimate, true and in accordance with the law in force in the
Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia when the Investment has become in the form of a legal
entity, in which case the investment becomes a Limited Liability Company.
3) That if and when associated with the theory of authority from birth and establishment of PT.
Aquafarm Nusantara Cq. Branch Office (Defendant) as well as with PT Suri Tani Pemuka Tergadat
become a Limited Personnel subject to the rules of the Statute in the Unitary State of the Republic
of lndonesia, it is Legal and Base according to law if and when the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of
Industry and Trade as well as with the Coordinating Agency Capital Investment (BKPM) of the
Republic of lndonesia, actually has a close legal relationship (Koneksiteit) as well as innerlijke
samenhang innerlijarah relationship) with legal acts of and due to the birth and founding of PT.
Aquafarm Nusantara Cq. Branch Office (Defendant), gitupun with PT uri Tan Pemuka- (Defendant
- being-an erserdan Limited
4) That No Power and the Capacity of Defendant V to obstruct more than not to grant a specific
business permit in this case the business license to Defendant Il cause and because that in
principle refers to the Law of Regional Autonomy, the Rules of Regulation of the applicable Law
and attached to the Local Government Apparatus on the pokonya is to organize the Regional
 Government well, regularly, accountable, prospering the life of the people and subject to the
Constitution namely Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution
5) Whereas in connection with the specific business of fishery in this case the business license to the
Defendant that has been granted by Defendant V is inseparable to the principle for the welfare of
the people's economic life because in fact the fishery business activities carried out by the
Defendant clearly have absorbed the labor of the residents / residents around the territory stand
up and running the business of Defendant II, thereby in fact increasing the civil economic around
the stand and the running of the Defendant's business
D. PURPOSE OF HAMPA
1) Whereas the Plaintiff did not control the lawsuit, in this case the Plaintiff's basis filed a lawsuit
against Defendant V based on the granting of a fishery business permit to the Defendant in the
Year 2014 to 2015 without detail mentioning the license number and the Plaintiff himself did not
know that Defendant V has reimbursed referred to in 2017.
2) based on the above consideration of the Plaintiff's claim in this Civil Procedure is considered
Hampa (lusoir), and this lawsuit is legally unacceptable (Niet Onvantkelijke Verklaring)
2. In the principal case
Whereas Defendant V expressly rejected all claims of the Plaintiff, except for the things described
below
1) Whereas the legal basis of the Plaintiff to direct the Defendant V to review the permits that are
contrary to the water quality standard of Lake Toba is the Governor Regulation of Sumatera Utara
Number 1 Year 2009 on the Raw Water Quality. The Lake Toba-di-Rrovinsi-Sumatera, not can be
implemented in the following considerations,
2) That the Governor Regulation of North Sumatra Number 1 Year 2009 on Water Quality Standard
of Lake Toba, need to be reviewed or tested material in the Supreme Court, because the existence
of the Regulation is not relevant implemented for the community around Lake Toba and Local
Government around Lake Toba where Lake Toba existence is Zone Open, anyone can do activities
in Lake Toba, many people or parties who do activities that directly use the water of Lake Toba,
such as waste deterzen, The existence of Defendant Il affect Water Pollution of Lake Toba very
small influence on water pollution of Lake Toba if compared to the community drainage system
and the average surrounding Hotel in Lake Toba, so we Defendants feel the need to question the
Plaintiff, why only Defendant I and Defendant l are considered by the plaintiffs who directly
pollute in Lake Toba while thousands of people as well hundreds of companies in the form of
hotels and restaurants participate in daily activities using the water of Lake Toba, so we Defendant
V felt Peggugat less Party to be the Defendant.
3) Defendant V has objected to review of the Defendant's License on the Legal Basis of Governor
Regulation of Sumatera Utara Number 1 Year 2009 concerning Water Quality Standard of Lake
Toba in Sumatera Province, where the consideration is as follows
a) That the Government of Simalungun Regency has the Local Regulation of Simalungun
Regency Number 10 Year 2012 on Spatial Planning (RTRW) of Simalungun Regency Year
2011-2031, which is explained in the Regional Regulation meant that the Government of
Simalungun Regency divides the areas of Lake Toba according to its designation including
the area of cultivation development fish around Lake Toba in Simalungun District, we can
 explain that the Defendant's existence is in accordance with Regional Regulation of
Simalungun Regency Number 10 Year 2012 on Spatial Planning (RTRW) of Simalungun
Regency Year 2011-2031
b) Whereas until now the North Sumatera Provincial Government has not yet had a Regional
Regulation on Spatial Planning of North Sumatera Province, so that the existence of North
Sumatra Governor Regulation No. 1 Year 2009 on Water Quality-Water-Lake-Toba-is very
leman, and contrary to the regions which has owned its own Spatial Planning, such as the
Simalungun Regency Government, speaking Lake Toba Regencies should have the
Provincial Government of Sumatera first has a Regional Spatial Regulation of North
Sumatra followed by other supporting regulations such as Regulation on Spatial Detail
Plan of Lake Toba Regencies and Governor Regulation No. 1 of 2009 on the Water Quality
Standard of Lake Toba.
c) Whereas the granting of License of Simalungun District Government to the Defendant has
been in accordance with Proscur and the applicable Laws and Regulations as well as a set
of legal basis for granting the said permit, namely Law. No. 31 Year 2004 on Fisheries, PP.
54 Year 2002 on Fishery Business, PP. 60 of 2007 on the Conversion of Fish Resources,
Regulation of the Minister of Marine Affairs and Fisheries no. PER.12 / MEN / 2007
concerning Business Licensing of Fish Cultivation, Simalungun District Regulation No. 10
Year 2012 on Spatial Planning (RTRW) of Simalungun Regency Year 2011 2013, Perda
Kabupaten Simalungun No 8 Year 2011 Ditang Specific Licensing Levy, Simalungun
Regent's Regulation number 15 of 2014 On Amendments to the Rules. Regent of
Simalungun Number 25 of 2013 on Delegation of Authority to Grant Licensing, Non
Licensing and Investment from Regent to Head of Integrated Licensing Service and
Investment Board of Simalungun Regency
d) Whereas Defendant V considered Governor Regulation no. 1 Year 2009 about the Water
Quality Standard of Lake Toba so that the application of Lake Toba water classified as first
class is done by unilateral determination without involving Stakeholders, the stakeholders
are around Lake Toba
4) Whereas Defendant II rejected the Plaintiff's lawsuit to conduct a Judicial Review, considering the
existence of the Good Governance Principle, by granting permission to Defendant I, the
Simalungun District Government has provided a positive-benefit-to-the-neighborhood
environment-that is, employs the community around Kerambah Naring Apung (KJA ) so that
people's economy increases;
5) Whereas Defendant V refused to review the permit issued to the defendant, because if the license
is revoked, many people in the Simalungun District are harmed, such as workers and fish farmers
who are directly involved in this business, causing new problems namely economic problems
6) Whereas Defendant V rejected the Plaintiff's lawsuit to review the issued license, since Defendant
I is a company that has acknowledged the cultivation of environmentally friendly tilapia in
accordance with the Aqua Steward Council (ASC), then Best Aquaculture Practice (BAPl), as well
as the Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Wacth;
7) Whereas Defendant V rejected the Plaintiff's lawsuit to review the issued license, because
Defendant I has UPL UKL Environmental Permit from Environment Agency of Simalungun Regency
Government;
8) Whereas Defendant V rejected Claim No. 54 concerning the burden of real costs / expenses arising
in this case was transferred to the Defendant.
9) Whereas Defendant V rejected the Defendant's Lawsuit regarding Lake Toba Water Quality
Parameters is not in accordance with the First Class Water Quality Parameters as referred to in
Article 8 Paragraph (1) Letter a and Appendix 1 of Government Regulation no. 82 of 2001 on the
Management of Water Quality and Control of Water Pollution and Article 4 paragraph (1) letter a
and Appendix of Regulation Gbernur Sumatera Utara Number 1 Year 2009 on Water Quality
Standard of Lake Toba, where the Plaintiff through PT. Sucofindo (Persero) has conducted data
retrieval, analyzing and analyzing the water quality of Lake Toba on November 10, 2016 and
analyzed November 11, 2016 unilaterally, so that our Defendants are very doubtful about the
correctness of the process and the result of analysis by the Plaintiff and PT Sucofindo, and
appealed to the Panel of Judges to conduct a Field Trial of this Case on the Lake Toba site to
sample and analyze the water of Lake Toba in the area designated by the Plaintiff in his suit, of
course with the company that analyzes the Water Quality and agreed by the Parties Plaintiffs and
Defendants.

Based on the considerations of Defendant V, we appeal to the Panel of Judges at the Balige District
Court to adjudicate the Case in order to provide a substantial legal decision:

DISCLAIM THE ACTUALLY CLAIM FOR ALL ACTUALLY, OR AT LEAST-DO NOT DISCLAIM THE
UNAUTHORIZED ACCOUNTABILITY (NIET ONVANTKELIJKE VERKLARD)

Thus exceptions and Responses to this lawsuit we submit, for the attention and approval of the
judges of the judges are expressed gratitude

Sincerely
An. REGENT SIMALUNGUN ACCUSED V
His power