 One of the SPI work is about challenging laws that against peasant rights. So I'm going to present our case in the constitutional court against the investment law. OK. So the Indonesian Peasant Union is a national movement of landless people, peasants, small farmers from workers, and peasants, an indigenous-based community. It was established in its current form in December 2007, taking over from its predecessor from the Federation of Indonesian Peasant Union. And we have members in 15 provinces, as you can see on the map, with thousands of individual members at village level. So you can see, this is the organizational guidelines from 2008 to 2013. We have our central issue, our agrarian reform, food 70, peasant rights, struggles against neoliberalism, sustainable agriculture, and the institutional of SPI. And our activities are expanding land domination, production, distribution, mass action, study and research, lobby and delegation, education and training, cooperatives, campaign, and agrarian conflict resolution. And our three main programs are agrarian reform and rural development, strengthening and expanding our organization, and also strengthening peasant politics positions. Yes, so we're filing the case to the constitutional court, SPI and other civil society organizations in Indonesia. And we formed this coalition called Graklawan, People Movement Against Neocolonialism and Imperialism. It founded in 2007. In order to oppose the investment law, it consists of 10 member organizations. And now Graklawan is becoming a national front for civil society organization against government neoliberalism policy. Now we have more than 40 members organization. And our recent activity was in December 2013. Graklawan launched the NWTO campaign to stop the WTO's ministerial meeting in Bali. And Graklawan also inspired some civil society organization in Asia to form social movement for alternative Asia, a bigger front against neoliberalism agenda in Asia. So I want to explain about the constitutional court in Indonesia. It is guaranteed in Article 24 of Indonesia 1945 Constitution. The function is to adjudicate constitutional case and safeguard the constitution. The justice consists of nine justices, three justices submitted by the president, three justices submitted by the parliament, and three justices submitted by the Supreme Court. And now civil society sees the constitutional court as a battleground to challenge law, state pilot, the constitution, and the right enshrine in it. So now we enter the investment law, number 25, 2007. So this law is part of the investment climate policies improvement process that is established through the presidential instruction, number three of 2006, funded by the World Bank, by the debt of $900 million US dollar. And it contains a number of contingency strikes, including rights to tenure for 95 years. And when the civil society heard about this law from the parliament, we started to scrutinizing the laws with series of discussion and seminar within the member organization. In SPI, we gave the draft of this law and we sent it to our member in province. And they discuss it between the members and they send their opinion to the national office. And mostly they concern about the land rights regulation in these laws. And after that, we meet with the experts, a lot of experts from various disciplines. The plaintiff is SPI. We have the Pebehae, the Eagle 8 Association, the other farmer associations, HAPI. We have Binadesa Foundation, Women Solidarities League. We have Labor Union. We have Friends of the Earth of Indonesia. We have a Grand Reform Consortium. And we also have the Indonesian Human Rights Force and Women's Small Enterprises Association. So what are the concerns from this law is, the first one is the 100% foreign ownership. So this law allows foreign companies to own 100% of Indonesian companies. And the second one is the national treatment in the article 4.2. In making the basic policies set forth in paragraph above the government is to provide the same treatment to any domestic and foreign investors by continuously considering the national interests. And we also concern about the capital flight and asset reputation. It's in the article 8. And also the use of foreign labor. It's in the article 10. And also our main concern is the land rights in article 22. So the court asserted that in the formulation of the article 30 of the Constitution, the exploitation of natural resources for the greatest benefit of people is protected by the Constitution. Then a problem arise when the granting of land rights right to tenure, right to build, right of use is given and simultaneously renewed in advance. And we can see in article 32 paragraph 4, in the event of a dispute in the field of investment between the government with the foreign investor, the party will resolve the dispute through the international arbitration, which must be agreed upon by the parties. And this suggests that the state qualifies as a subject of regular civil law with a position equal to the investor. So the court decided that the article 22 paragraph 1, 2, and 4 of the investment law was contrary to the Constitution. Regulation on the right to tenure, right to build, and right to use referred in this law should defer to the stipulation of the basic agreeing law of 1960. In our basic agreeing law of 1960, right to tenure is given for 35 years. And it may be further renewed for 25 years. The right to build is given for 30 years. And it may be further renewed for 20 years. To use is given for 25 years. And it may be further renewed for 20 years. The court also held that the simultaneously renewed in advance terms are omitted from the article 22 of the investment law. So Dracula 1 felt the constitutional court decision to defend the article 32 of the Constitution and release the provision of the right to tenure, right to build, and right of use as the set out under the basic agreeing law of 1960 could be crucial in order to protect the interests of Indonesian rural citizens. Despite the positive development, Dracula 1 believed that the court made a mistake with regard to article 1 paragraph 3 of the investment law, which provides for 100% foreign ownership and was not found to be unconstitutional. Dracula 1 also think that the article 8 concerning the capital rights should have been abolished by the court because it could lead to mass layoffs of workers if investors can move the asset and capital easily without any growth in by the state. However, this court decision proved that civil society organization can play a role in correcting government policy that could be detrimental to citizens. So what can we learn from our efforts in filing this case to the constitutional court is we have, we get a lot of support from academic groups, but there are also a problem within the process that we don't have any sufficient elaboration on the potential human rights violation under the investment law. And also the legal challenge submitted was to focus on article 222 regarding the land rights. And we can see that the engagement of civil society organization with the constitutional court is important. And we feel that another avenue must be pursued to defend the rights of the people. Yeah, so, so SPA has been doing another avenue in order to reform policies and laws of the government by drafting a new law. So for example, we have been drafting the food, the food law bill since 2008. And we gave the bill to the legislation board in the parliament and then our proposal is entered in the national legislation program in 2008, 2010. And then the legislation board gives our proposal to the food commission, the Food and Agriculture Commission of the parliament. And we start by identifying the commission member that gonna be seated in the special committee in order to discuss the food law. And we invite them to seminars and workshop to level our perception about the food law and also SPI views of the food laws. And also we help press conference and campaign to raise public awareness. And we also present in the meeting in the sessions of the food commission to monitor the progress of the food law. And after the law passed, we get the first draft from the food commission and we also submit our comment to the food commission. SPI has also challenged another laws in constitution court such as coastal management law number 27, 2007. We won the case and also the, it's the recent case, the Cultivation System law number 12, 972. And we also filed a case against the land acquisition for development interest law number 2, 2012. We lost the case. And currently we have two cases in the court, the Patent Protection and Empowerment Law number 19, 2013. And also we filed a case against the food law number 18, 2012 which is the food law is our proposal. But the content of the food law is far from our proposal from our hope. So we found some articles in the laws that against our views such as the legalization of GMOs and the import regulation. So we filed a case and we have the session for the February 5th regarding the food law case. Thank you.