Some prosecutors might be drunk when writing this:

Weekend with Dad: making too much laugh of a horribly hilarious summon letter of a criminal case, written by a South Sumatera prosecutor and approved by his THREE supervisors. Maybe they’re drunk, high, KHILAF, or just stupid. Think through the text above,

Logic 1: 50,000 m3 + 65,403,180,788 m3 = 144,014,473,880 m3 --- This is why I support math to be one of the subject in our national exam. Math, NOT meth, your honor…

Logic 2: the price of 144,014,473,880 m3 of fill material is ONLY IDR  2,433,844,002 --- MEANS, a cubic meter of fill material equals IDR 0.0169/m3. Hell yeah, 1.69 CENT for ONE METRIC of fill material (soil), AWESOME!

Logic 3: If 1 cubic meter of soil is IDR 38,000 -- then 144,014,473,880 m3 suppose to be IDR 5,472,550,007,440,000 (NOT only 2 million-ish!). It's 2.68 TIMES Indonesia's total spending OR 3.15 TIMES Indonesia's total revenue for 2015 fiscal year, dude!

ANYWAY, can you imagine how much is 144,014,473,880 m3? --- Logic 4: 

It’s 3,599.64 TIMES the circumference of the earth at the equator (which is the fat side -- 40,075 km loop each) if we use 1m x 1 m surface. Means, we can build a 1m x 1m-surfaced long block passing through Indonesia, Atlantic Ocean, northern Africa, Middle East, South Asia, and the Pacific Ocean (the whole equator) as much as 3,599 times!! (OR, a 1m thick wall as high as 3,599m along the equator. Ready for a new great wall?).

We can make a 1 m fill for 194.54 TIMES the total area of DKI Jakarta (which is 740.3 km2 in total) – OR, you can fill that amount of soil to DKI Jakarta and make the whole province 194.54 m higher.

Anyway, we can fill the whole area of Java (138,794 km2, the 13^th biggest island on earth) by 1 m, and still have a surplus of 7 DKI Jakartas (5,220.47 km2)

Assuming one dump truck can load 20 m3 of soil (2m x 2m x 5m – which is HUGE and might not be factual), we will need 7,200,723,694 TIMES loading and unloading the materials. Even if we can provide 1,000 trucks to load and unload the materials, with each truck can do 10x loading and unloading per day (which is a totally arbitrary assumption – but whatever), it will still take 720,073.2 days to complete the task. Anyway, 720,073.2 days means 1,972 years and 9 months and 18 days. The faster way to complete the task is to provide each person on the earth a truck of 20m3 capacity to perform the loading and unloading.

I really start thinking we need a dedicated blog for this shit. HAHA.

Regards and cheers from those who are responsible for making us laughing SO HARD,

Some kids just... have too much energy!

So in a sweet afternoon when I was sipping my coffee, an Australian friend told me,

"Quina, I don't think you should ever drink coffee. You have too much energy, and when you drink coffee, you go crazy!!"

So I told my boyfriend with a hope that he will give me some nice words that I'm okay drinking coffee. But the reply that I got was... evil.

"He has no idea how monstrous you can be," that's what my boyfriend told me.

Thanks, lovely BF. I guess I pick the right person to deal with my superfluous "monstrous" attitude. Shiva granddaughter I am, like how they called me... couple of years ago. Or, bandit, like how my dad's clients used to call me and my sister. OH BIG THANKS, I thought I'm a grown up lady.

Ozama binNa(ga)Ragawati

Meet Ozama, our new pet! He's from Afghanistan, dropped by to our house by an Afghanistan shipping company which happen to be on its way to deliver incinerator ash to Tuvalu, so he's been buried pretty long inside that incinerator ash before hatched in Pandji's house. He said he wants to be a hipster kiddo dragon. He adores both Kurt Cobain and Osama bin Laden. We're having a problem controlling his smoking habit, pretty sad since he's just hatched and already took Pandji's cigarette without permission. Please pray for us to grow a healthy generation of dragon without cigarette!

Towards the land of monsters

I wanted to marry a mafia, like for real. The kind of future family I had in my dream was a stressful one, full of blood, surviving conflict after conflict, with him managing the dirty business and me managing the family charity. Allocate the dirty money to the least marginalized, who will never get funded for typical charity projects. Search for long-term solutions for the worst of the worst. Sounds like a really beautiful cooperation in this imperfect world.

But as I dated "dirty" people and bad guy (I've never dated a real mafia though), I realized that those kind of ethical contractions are only beautiful in hypothetical. My ethical voice inside just couldn't survive their stories, seeing them doing injustice in front of my eyes killed my emotions faster than I thought. While sometimes they just need an ear to hear, I couldn't help to be less than a judge to punish them and adding their stress. One "dirty lawyer" in my past really did what I imagined, really charitable, but play all the dirty cards. I enjoyed the mental exercise of being his diary, but realized that it's no more than a curious journey for me.

I never thought of future family again until this morning suddenly I talk with my boyfriend about another hypothetical. I said to him I want to learn pole dance. He always knew I want to move to rural areas where environmental conflicts get no advocate, so practicing pole dance would normally be weird. But we like to imagine stuffs, so we continue the story. I said I want to work more closely with religion groups, including MUI (Majelis Ulama Indonesia), basically religious leaders. And we're joking about me being a pole dancer while pursuing my Ph.D. and doing environmental religion law reform, and while I'm working on my paper and advocacy somewhere he will clean up the mess sent by Islam extremists to our house. Like, seriously, the terror you can imagine for going against the communal norm can be as chill as threatening phone call to dead chicken sent to you in package. We won't be married, and I don't imagine having children but I'll be interested in adopting one. He's totally fine with both options, but he wants dogs. I want monsters, so we'll name our dogs after monsters and dress them like ones. He still wants to be a movie critics, and I'm so supporting him to be more irritating to stupid filmmakers. We both will have lots of enemy, and our daily life will discuss strategies to protect our dogs and children from terrors. Maybe if we get bored with Indonesia, we will go to South Asia or post-Soviet countries or Africa, but he wants to go to Iceland. Either way is fine, but Iceland got to be chaotic first, maybe some revolution before we're going there.

Hmm, an interesting fiction already. I've never got a partner who can't being imaginative, and he's being a nice one, we're still living our childish dreams. I hope we'll really live it :) Ah, already on our way, kiddo.

Public Trust Symposium Panel 4: Future Development of the Public Trust

John Dernbach from Widener University Law School started this session with the Robinson Township case and the potential meaning of Constitutional Public Trust. As many environmental lawyers in the US might reckon, Robinson Township is a groundbreaking case which strikes down a fracking statute under the Pennsylvania constitution. However, this is still potential, because there are many meanings and implication which might be taken from the case.

Prof. Dernbach broke down Penn's environmental amendment in Article I, Section 27, into two big part: (1) right to environment; and (2) public trust language. However, like other environmental rights constitutional provision, it gets buried right away, with the former case saying it is not self-executing. It was followed with other of the litigation which did a remarkable judicial activism, giving three balancing test to the right, the "protect and conserve" test. Next, entered the Robinson Township, challenging Marcellus legislation, and decided using a public trust framing of its environmental rights amendment!

On his words, what the court saying was, "We know that industry needs predictability, but also the people who's living under the place vulnerable to this oil and gas exploration - they need predictability, too! Their interest and expectation must be protected!" -- A totally quotable words!

Pre-Robinson Township, the PTD in Article I, Section 27 might be: (1) Confirm and extend governmental authority; (2) Guide statutory interpretation; (3) Provide constitutional authority for laws which legislation/executive enacted against. And, the potential effect of Robinson Township will bring these three functions further: (1) Strengthens each of these; (2) Imposes duties on government, not just confirming and extending governmental authority. And hey, it might happen in Indonesia, too, if we can do some test case!

After him, Richard Frank took the floor, pointing to the groundwater pumping that affect navigable waters and the PTD implication to that. He begun with the Waiahole Ditch case from Hawaii and some other cases, also some states' legislation which give trust language in protecting groundwater. His primary focus is the Scott River litigation in NW California, regarding the Klamath & Scott Rivers, which getting dried because of more and more wells being drilled around the river for the agricultural purposes. The case was filed in 2010 in the Sacramento County Superior Court, the main argument relying on Mono Lake's decision, that the government have an affirmative duty to do something about the water, and the agencies have disclaimed authority/obligation to do so, and asking the court to issue order requiring management consistent with PTD. The litigation is still ongoing, but a positive development is signalling.

And here comes the man, Michael Blumm, my PTD Professor in Lewis & Clark, and I enjoyed the way he used his first 7 minutes to give entertaining rebuttal to the previous panels! If there's one skill I adore from lawyers, is their ability to use the rightest words to give mean rebuttal. And finally he started, bring a light to the Lake Oswego case, a private lake just three miles from the law school. Relying on two preposition: (1) the water is navigable; and (2) there should be public right to access based on the Statehood Act right. Again, the case is still on going, but if they lose, they'll just get to the Supreme Court. And then things get mushy, I can't remember how, but then he start to talk about the Federal PTD, which I think actually just an impromptu "lecture" to the previous panelists. That was fun, old man!

The next speaker, Mary Christina Wood, is the co-writer of the PTD textbook that Blumm wrote, and she's one of "the guy" in the US PTD world. She started with a really romantic method, brought all the audience to imagine what climate and PTD might look like at the end of the century... and think about how our childrens' life right then. She really get into the point when she mentioned that we lawyers tend to be trapped within the statutory analysis, discussing what might fit to be brought to court and which fits for the other branches, and forgetting that the nature is actually already working so much faster than we anticipated. And then she got back to climate change, comparing how the regulations have been the micro approach, while the trust litigation are macro approach, basically saying "government need to have a plan"! She also mention about the "Our Children's Trust" where children brought petition to the government, saying that the agencies must have a plan. One of the case that got through the court was brought in Eugene, OR, and you can google about it.

That's kind of the end of this Symposium for me. Totally cool, but definitely cooler if we can try it back home ;)