The Dispute of Agrarian Law in Indonesia that Affects the Cause of Land Dispute Cases that occurred between the Government and the small people (such as the Land Dispute Cases in Kentingan Baru, Surakarta)
Land Law Policy In Indonesia From Time to Time
Written by: Dr.KPH.Adip.Praboewidjojo, SH, MH
1. Agrarian Policy • Agrarian Policy in Indonesia can not be separated from the history of the Indonesian nation. Therefore, in the presentation of Agrarian Policy is used chronological approach with tracing from the Dutch colonial period in Indonesia. To facilitate understanding then the exposure will be divided according to the period of time following the political changes taking place in the history of our nation, given that policy is a political product.
2. Colonial Period • In the days of the Dutch colonial government introduced the agrarian policy known as Agrarische Wet 1870 in the Dutch East Indies. The Agrarian Law of 1870 then opened the door for the entry of large foreign private capital, particularly the Netherlands to Indonesia, and a large number of large estates in Java and Sumatera were born. It turns out later, this large plantation economic system is miserable to the people.
3. Colonial era • Various criticisms from a number of Dutch intellectuals themselves against Agrische Wet 1870, including Prof. van Gelderen and others. • The words of Prof van Gelderen are well known, which to this day have also been widely quoted, namely: "The Indonesian nation (because of Agrarishce Wet's policy) will become a coelie nation", and become a "koelie among nations!". This is evident, not only with our historical record of contract coolies in plantations with a heartbreaking story, but a situation that continues to this day. We are witnessing today the phenomenon of migration from our countryside to big cities and even abroad, of which 70% more displaced from that hometown are women.
4. Colonial Period • Due to much criticism, the Dutch colonial government then conducted research on "declining people's welfare" (mindere welvaarts onderzoek- MWO). People's woes become proven! • The colonial government then took a policy move known as the "Ethical Policy" (Ethische Politiek): six improvement programs, namely irrigation, reforestation, colonization (transmigration), education, health and credit. • Ethical Policy (except health), direct or indirect, related to agrarian matters. But it did not change much. Even agrarian disputes are also widespread, and in 1929-1933, the Dutch East Indies suffered a very severe economic crisis.
5. Colonial Age Notes to Ethical Policy: • Education. Because Dutch colonialism is extractive, it extracts natural resources. New education was built in the early 20th century, and even then it was not university level. When Indonesia gained its independence in 1945, there is no university here yet. There are only a few "high schools" (engineering, medicine, law). What is the relevance of all this to the agrarian question? Different from the various countries of the former British or Spanish colonies, in Indonesia the number of "agrarian experts" became very limited, due to the backwardness of the education. Before Indonesia's independence, almost no fighters (civil or military) raised agrarian issues as a platform of struggle (except two, Soekarno and Iwa Kusuma Sumantri). • Rural Credit Programs in such ethical politics in its implementation in the rural areas experienced obstacles due to the conflict between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Land of the Colonies. In Finance, important posts were occupied by Dutch officials dominated by neo-classical economic thinking (the school of Prof. Gongrijp), whereas the Dutch civil service was generally a neo-populist thinker (students of Prof. J. H. Boeke).
6. Japanese Occupation Period (1942-1945 / World War II) • Farmers are taxed 40% of the production of the land. This of course further exacerbates poverty. • Large estates become displaced by abandonment by their owners (Dutch and other foreign capital). With abandoned plantation lands and severe poverty in the community, people inhabited the abandoned estates. The Japanese occupation government turned out to tolerate even encourage people's actions. Sociologically, this reality has created a collective perception among the people, that it seems as though they have regained their rights to the land which was once annexed by the Dutch (and other foreign capital through the colonial Agrarian Law 1870).
7. Early Indonesian Independence (1945-1960) • Learning from the colonial experience, it is learned that the great plantation economic system is harming the people, especially because it has displaced the vast lands that were originally cultivated by the people. • After the Japanese surrendered to the Allied forces, General Mc Arthur ordered Emperor Hirohito to carry out Landreform. • Once independence, the founders of the Republic make the main focus in the socio-economic field must be put in the planning to "rearrange" the issue of ownership, empowerment and land use. About half a year of independent Indonesia, Vice President, Bung Hatta (as an economist) has described the problem of "Indonesia's economy in the future". Among his various important descriptions of the past, there are two points to be mentioned and later inspired the content and spirit of UUPA 1960), namely: (a) the large plantations were once the people's lands; (b) for the Indonesian people, the land should not be used as merchandise solely for profit (commercial commodities).
8. The beginning of Indonesia Merdeka (1945-1960) • Period 1945-1950: Land reform trial Law no. 13/1946 Landreform in Banyumas area. Emergency Law no. 13/1948 Landreform in the Special Region of Yogyakarta and Surakarta. • 1948 a State Committee was formed to develop thinking in order to prepare the new Agrarian Law, the National Law, to replace the colonial Agrarian Law 1870. • However, due to Dutch aggression (Clash 2, December 1948- August 1949) then the committee disbanded.
9. Early Indonesian Independence (1945-1960) • With various inputs from previous committees, the Committee finally succeeded in preparing a bill ready for submission to the House of Representatives. However, at the suggestion of President Soekarno, the bill was renewed by the cooperation of the House of Representatives with the University of Gajah Mada (UGM). • The results of the DPR-UGM cooperation were then submitted to the DPR. On 24 September 1960 the bill was passed by the House of Representatives and stipulated as Law no. 5/1960 on the Basic Regulations on the Fundamentals of Agaria (known as UUPA 1960). Thus the long process of birth of UUPA 1960.
10. Early Indonesian Independence (1945-1960) • Period 1950-1960: Situation dilemmatic On the one hand, the initial idea that the main project of reform is the plantation lands with erfpacht rights, absentee lands, former private lands, and abandoned lands. But, on the other hand, the government - even though it is back to the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, and no longer the RIS as the KMB demands - remains bound by the KMB agreement which contains the provision that the people should be expelled from the estates owned by the Dutch private capital. Perhaps, this dilemma is one of the reasons that influence why the process of formulation of BAL becomes so long (12 years). • In 1957 Indonesia finally canceled the KMB agreement, and in 1958 nationalized large foreign-owned plantations, as well as through Law no. 1/1958 abolished private lands.
11. Period 1960-1965: Guided Democracy • Originally this period is planned as a target of the implementation of agrarian reform. But due to various upheavals, the concentration of government minds became divided. The various problems faced at that time, among others, because the government still have to face the problem of solving the remnants of PRRI / Permesta rebellion; the follow-up of plantation nationalization; the struggle for the return of West Irian; and confrontation with Malaysia. All these problems become the obstacles for the immediate implementation of agrarian reform. • On the other hand, since the 1960 UUPA contains only the basic rules, many articles will be further elaborated into more operational regulations or laws. However, because of the conditions as mentioned above, then it has largely not worked. The most important translation that has been done is the enactment of Law no. 56/1960 (originally in the form of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law), later popularly known as Landrform Law, namely "Determination of Land Area of Agriculture".
12. Period 1960-1965 / Guided Democracy • Due to the shortage of agrarian experts experienced in landrefom, the Minister of Agrarian Affairs (alamarhum Sadjarwo) consulted with an expert from the United States, namely Dr. Wolf Ladejinsky (former American Agricultural Attaché in Japan, who assisted General Mac Arthur while carrying out landrefom in Japan). • Ladejinsky Research Results: First, between the ideas and actions of the implementation is inconsistent, disconnected (disjointed). The idea is revolutionary but the institutionalization of its implementation is complicated. Bureaucracy in Indonesia is complicated. The data is not accurate, so the implementation of redistribution becomes difficult and has obstacles in the field. (Perhaps, this is also what politically encouraged the PKI to take unilateral action, which caused trauma and gave birth to the stigma that landrefom is the same as the PKI).13. Period 1960-1965 / Second Guided Democracy, the redistribution model is not in accordance with the existing objective conditions. The minimum limit of 2 hectares is applied thoroughly considered unrealistic. Some concepts, the definition is not clear. For example, who, and how many people are eligible for potential beneficiaries, and how many are expected to be real recipients (real benficiaries)? What lands will be the object of reform? PP. 224/1961 issued as a guideline for the implementation of UUPA is considered inconsistent with the ideal of UUPA.
14. Period 1960-1965 / Guided Democracy Other Expert Opinions Other Expert Opinions: Mc Auslan • Positive side of BAL is: (1) UUPA 1960 is the best legal product during RI history; (2) the framework, format and formulation "modern"; (3) in advance the framers already have "gender" sensitivity; and (4) have idealism abolish l'exploitation de l'homme par l'homme. The negative side is: (1) in the case of customary law, its link and placement in UUPA 1960 is not very clear; (2) his landreform program is also considered not too clear (similar to Ladejinsky's criticism); and (3) unanticipated possible obstacles. • Besides the existence of various other obstacles, according to him, there are two main obstacles in agrarian problems in Indonesia, namely: Legal obstacles. Both in the center and in the regions, the legal apparatus has not mastered the true agrarian issues. This is closely related to the second main constraint. Limited availability of experts / Scientific barriers (Mc Auslan term). Unlike other developing countries, in Indonesia which is actually a large country that is basically agrarian, the number of agricultural scientists is very limited. According to Mac Auslan, this is an irony. As a result, every time discussing agrarian, which is always discussed "agrarian law". In fact, agrarian covers almost all aspects of life (social, economic, cultural, environmental, and political, even defense).15. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • Old slogan: "Sovereign in politics, economic self-reliance, and personality in culture", crushed by a new slogan: "Politics no, economy yes!" The society drifts, and does not realize that The slogan itself is political! • The New Order's general policy is characterized by a number of characteristics, namely: (a) stability is a top priority; (b) in the socio-economic field, development depends on foreign debt, foreign capital, and betting on the strong; and (c) in the agrarian field adopted a policy of shortcut, the Green Revolution without Agrarian Reform. With such a policy, UUA 1960 is like entering a "coffin". That is, although not revoked, its existence is ignored.
16. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • In 1967 three laws that ignored the provisions contained in UUPA 1960 (UU PMA, Basic Forest Law, Mining Basic Law). • For about 11 years the BAL of 1960 was mistakenly perceived as a PKI product. This stigma is even still embedded in the minds of some of our society until now. • New in 1978 the existence of UUPA 1960 was reinstated as a "national product" (not a PKI product), after the report of research result from Committee Soemitro Djojohadikoesoemo (deceased) which at that time was Minister of Research and Technology. The return of attention to the existence of the 1960 UUPA - perhaps - also because of the invitation of the FAO to attend the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in Rome in 1979.17. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • In the 1979 Rome Conference, Indonesia sent a large delegation. The outcome of this conference is a document that in 1981 was published by FAO under the title Peasant's Charter (Peasant Charter). It is agreed that every two years every country will report the implementation of Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. No news, did Indonesia meet the agreement. • In 1981 at Selabintana Sukabumi (West Java) an international workshop was held on the same theme, as a follow-up to the Rome Conference, with the result accompanied by a recommendation to the Indonesian government. • The existence of the Farmers' Charter resulting from the meeting of Rome, and Selabintana's recommendations were not able to encourage the New Order government to "re-orient the policy". In fact, the overwhelming pride of self-sufficiency in food in 1984 has made the New Order overconfident that without an Agrarian Reform (through a "short cut") we will be able to prosper the people.18. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • It was later proven that food self-sufficiency did not last long. But this still does not make the New Order aware of what really happened. There is even a tendency to deviate far from the spirit of the 1945 Constitution and UUPA 1960. This digression began with the existence of various deregulation packages in the late 1980s to smooth the practice of liberal policy. • Although in the middle of the 1980s Indonesia achieved food self-sufficiency, social conflicts with the essence of agrarian issues have sprung up everywhere and nothing has been done to date. KPA 2001 data shows the number of cases reached 2834 cases that have been reported to various NGOs by the community since the New Order era in an effort to find support to defend their rights. Inventory of BPN reported to Commission II (18 September 2007) mentioned 7468 cases. Unfortunately the details of the location and the conflicting parties have never been delivered. • However, this fact is not enough to open the minds of leaders that the agrarian issue is a fundamental issue. Even tend to deviate from the spirit of UUPA 1960 more real when in the decade of the 1990s came a statement from an authorized official that "land as a strategic commodity" (contrary to the fatwa Bung Hatta as mentioned above)19`. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • The various agrarian crises that occurred were not separated from the shambles in the agrarian legislation system (broadly). • Although theUUPA is reinforced, it does not help to overcome it, because some sectoral laws - which differ from the spirit of the UUPA 1960 have been in effect for so long, when the UUPA 1960 was reinforced, instead of clarification, but overlap. There is a strong impression that here and there legal engineering and manipulation to the extent that a policy refers to UUPA 1960, whereas in essence it is to facilitate foreign investment, in total contradiction to the basic ideals of UUPA 1960 (as happened in the Case Disputes in the New Clan: One of the Magersari residents whose father once received the assignment from the Eigendom Owner, heard that there was an issue that his New Kentingan would be used by officials, who later discovered that they (officials) .red) acquired these lands because they purchased at PT.Bengawan Permai through a mediator (middlemen or land mafia who cooperated with the National Land Agency) proved by their acknowledgment (in their Replik while suing the Magersari in Kentingan New, that they get the land is not from the grant of the state, and is the land of exchange with the guling land of Taman Jurug Wildlife in the 80s. The chronology is so that in the 70s the Municipality of Surakarta wanted to move animals from Taman Sriwedari to Jurug with management through investors, including land acquisition / kampong Taman Jurug(they are plaintiffs / certificate holder in this case are officials and business people .red, get the land by buying through PT.Bengawan Permai and not through procedural application to the National Land Agency, by occupying the first and have a gyr or a letter c first, but through the land mafia in cooperation with the National Land Agency). But because in the journey is not profitable, finally investors and Pt.Bengawan Permai asked the City Government to refund funds / shares pembanggaasan Jurug land. And at that time the city government no funds, then Pemkot exchange it with land Kentingan Baru.The above statement is very odd, as according to the applicable law, a person who wishes to own a piece of land from the State Land (TN) becomes a proprietary right, the requirement that the applicant must have juridical and physical control over the State Land (TN) to be applied for, and it is proven that the Replik in the principal matter is in the origin of the Persil mentioned the granting of land rights which is directly controlled by the State, thus the disputed land is the state land and not the land owned by the Government of Surakarta City, nor is it possible to exchange guling with the City Government of Surakarta, In this case the court case number 04 / Pdt.G / 2010 / PN.Ska in the Surakarta District Court can be concluded that: the material of Plaintiff's claim Sri Suryani less party and less complete, because Plaintiff Sri Suryani not reside and have population in Kentingan Baru (in Jl.KH.Maskur or Rt.03 / Rw.16 Jebres Sub-District Jebres Sub-District, Kota Surak arta .red), does not control the jurisdiction or physical object of the disputed land, because Sri Suryani obtained the certificate illegally or not procedurally, because it is clear that the state land can not be exchanged, so the certificate is defective by law, and full of engineering.).
20. Post New Order • Presidency of B.J. Habibie is in fact an intention to review the policy of land reform. Once formed the Committee under the leadership of Prof. Dr. Muladi, S.H. But have not had time to work this committee, there has been a change of president. The committee is then unclearly reported.21. Post-New Order • In the era of President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), his statement was stirred, that 40% of the plantation lands should be distributed to the people. Euphoria of freedom as a result of the fall of the New Order has spawned a variety of people's organizations (unions and fishermen, trade unions, women's organizations and others, including the emergence of dozens of political parties), as well as inhabitants occupy the land left abandoned by the owner / who controls it. Agrarian issues were lifted back to the surface by the insistence of various farming organizations / fishermen and various NGOs.22. Post-New Order Megawati's presidency: • At the beginning of his reign the Megawati Government has not demonstrated the certainty of the position on agrarian issues. • Meanwhile, among civil society, National Farmers Conference (April 2001) attended by various farmer organizations, various NGOs, as well as Komnas HAM, as one of its pemrakarsanya. The conference gave birth to a "Declaration on the Rights of Peasants". • Realizing the harshness of the people at that time, some members of the MPR election results in 1999 quite responsive. So the BP MPR in agrarian field then conducted various dialogues with various farmer organizations and NGOs, followed by the holding of two big workshops in Bandung in September / October 2001. The result was the birth of MPR TAP no. IX / 2001 on Agrarian Reform and Natural Resource Management.23. Post New Order • Seen from the spirit of UUPA 1960, the content of this TAP is indeed ambiguous. However, however, it must be accepted that it is the maximum result that can be achieved as a result of the compromise of the struggles of various interests. Even TAP as it is now may not even be born if there is no support group pressure in the form of a demo of about 12,000 members of various Peasant Union. Content of MPR Decree No. IX / 2001 is basically a kind of "order", either to the President or to the Parliament, to take follow-up action. When there was no sign of a response from both the DPR and the president in 2003, Komnas HAM, along with several NGOs and peasant organizations, took another initiative, formulating a proposal to President Megawati to establish KNUPKA (National Committee for Combating Agrarian Conflict). The president's response was positive, but, once again, not yet had this concept realized after the turn of the president took place. • Meanwhile, at the end of his term President Megawati issued Presidential Decree no. 34/2003 which mandates the National Land Agency (BPN) to draft a bill on "refinement" of UUPA 1960. With the change of president, the problem is also experiencing a progress that is not smooth.24. Post-New Order SBY's presidency: • Mandate to BPN to make "improvements" of UUPA 1960 still apply, and the process of refinement is still going on. But the result is not a refinement, but a total change to the UUPA. • Presidential Regulation no. 36/2005 (on infrastructure) that invites community reactions. This Presidential Regulation has caused widespread unrest in the community.25. Post New Order • Presidential Regulation no. 10/2006 on the internal restructuring of BPN institutions. One of the positives, perhaps is the establishment of Deputy for Assessment and Handling of Disputes and Agrarian Conflict. But how the results of our work have not heard any further. What is surprising is that in order to support the settlement of agrarian conflict has signed a joint decision between the Chairman of BPN and KAPOLRI on the Handling of Agrarian Conflict which approach is feared will make the widespread violence by the state apparatus to the parties involved in the conflict, in this case especially the masses peasants or other people who occupy the disputed lands facing the capital, especially since until now we have not fully managed to separate the POLRI from its military character and we have not seen a change in the attitude of our bureaucrats fundamentally which for many years is accustomed to the workings of character betting on the strong.
26. Post-New Order • Fourthly, in addition to these three points, it should be noted that in March 2006 just recently, Indonesia has sent a delegation to attend ICARRD (International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development) in Porto Alegre, Brazil, 7 -10 March 2006. But there is no clear direction from the national leadership, what mission should be carried by this delegation so that this is just a chance to walk the members of the government delegation. There are no results that people can see from this visit.27. Post New Order • Redistribution of land for farmers campaigned by SBY. Which land will be redistributed. Let's look at the data !!!28. Data of Agrarian Structure No. Land Usage Land Area (million Ha) 1 Total Land Area of Indonesia 192,26 2 Oil and Gas Working Contract 95.45 96, 81 3 Contract of Work of Minerals 6,47 90,34 4 Coal Contract of Work 24,77 65,57 5 KKB / PKP2PB 5.2 60,37 6 HPH 27,72 32.65 7 HTI 3,40 29,25 8 State Plantation 3,30 25,95 9 Private Plantation 1.08 24,87 11 Agricultural land 11,80 13,07 13 Housing , Shops, Offices, 14,00 * Industries etc.29. Conclusions: Approximately, if the land distribution program is implemented, what will be distributed is the former plantations of barren land that !! So. Farmers should not be swept away by exaggerated beautiful dreams with this campaign. However, this program should still be urged to be implemented immediately, prioritizing farmers in the area of conflict closest to the distribution location.
30. Debate on the Revision of UUPA Noer Fauzi (1999), there are 4 (four) reasons for revising the UUPA: • First Group, those who think that the UUPA and all other legislation must be made in good faith to guarantee the rights and obligations of the community , so of course UUPA and its implementing regulations are very reliable as a means of protecting the rights of disadvantaged communities. The issue of land grabs is judged to occur because of deviations from officials behaving deviant in using their authority. This version considers there is no need for any revision of the UUPA, which is required only for implementation updates.
31. Debate on the Revision of UUPA • The second category, are those who believe that the UUPA is a legal product that contains guarantees of community rights, but it is covered by various laws and regulations that distort the mandate of the UUPA. UUPA is a responsive character produced during the Old Order, but it is covered by various laws and regulations produced by the New Order that are generally repressive. In another formula, it is stated that UUPA is populist but surrounded by capitalistic rules. This group perceives land grabbing due to the orientation of the New Order regime's development which prioritizes the growth of industrial capital and government projects rather than the interests of the masses of agrarian populations. The agrarian law produced is a sub-system of economic growth, so its orientation is to provide legality support to large investors as well as government projects.Like the issue that the Kentingan Baru of the land will be used for the share by the officials, who later discovered that they (the officials of the officials) get the land because they bought it to PT.Bengawan Permai through a mediator ( brokers or land mafia who cooperate with unscrupulous National Land Agency). This is proven by their acknowledgment (in their Replik when they sued the Magersari citizens in Kentingan Baru, that they got the land not from the state grant, and it was a land swap with the land of Taman Jurug Wildlife in the 80s. 70s Surakarta city government wants to move animals from Taman Sriwedari to Jurug with management through investor, including land acquisition / village of Jurug park (they are plaintiff / certificate holder which in this case are officials and businessman .red, get the land by way of buying through PT.Bengawan Permai and not through procedural application to the National Land Agency, by occupying the first and have girik or letter c first, but through the land mafia in cooperation with the National Land Agency) .But because the journey is not profitable , finally investors and Pt.Bengawan Permai asked to in the municipal government to refund funds / shares pembanggaasan Jurug land. And at that time the city government no funds, then the city government exchange it with land Kentingan Baru.The above statement is very odd, as according to the applicable law, a person who wishes to own a piece of land from the State Land (TN) becomes a proprietary right, the requirement that the applicant must have juridical and physical control over the State Land (TN) to be applied for, and it is proven that the Replik in the principal matter is in the origin of the Persil mentioned the granting of land rights which is directly controlled by the State, thus the disputed land is the state land and not the land owned by the Government of Surakarta City, nor is it possible to exchange guling with the Government of Surakarta, because Sri Suryani (one of the examples of investors) is illegally or illegally certified, because it is clear that the state land can not be exchanged or sold, so the certificate is defective by law, and full of engineering. From the example of land dispute case in Kentingan Baru this is visible that the Government in this case Pemer the city of Surakarta prioritizes giving legitimate support to big investors rather than the interests of the people in terms of the interests of land tenure.
32. Debate on the Revision of UUPA • The third category, those who embrace free-market ideology and see that a rented and collective bureaucracy makes 'land procurement for development' a part of the creator of high economic costs, and hence the role bureaucracy should be reduced to a minimum. The agrarian law must be reformed in order to create a 'comfort' for business people. UUPA is a big hurdle, because with the UUPA state intervention on the procurement of land is too large. The issues of popular resistance to land grabbing, overlapping of land allocations and the failure of dispute resolution are an obstacle to both domestic and foreign investment.
33. Debate surrounding the Revision of UUPA High cost economic should be cut through the dismantling of the power of state intervention in the economy, especially in the market. This group promotes what they call an efficient land market, where the land market is the main road for businesses to acquire lands as the base of their business. The main answer to land disputes is the consolidation of the legal status of all land parcels through land registration programs. But, at the same time with this, the business sector can acquire land without the need to hoard significant difficulties. • The fourth category, which places the UUPA as a legal product that needs to be viewed critically. It is argued that there is no denying the existence of the irregularities in the use of authority from officials in connection with the rampant agrarian dispute - as pointed out by the first group. It is also undeniable that there are a number of government regulations covering the capitalist-oriented UUPA, and there are also regulations that deviate from the UUPA. However, the failure of UUPA is also perceived as a contributor to the creation of agrarian disputes that are rampant more in the past fifteen years.
34. Debate on the Revision of UUPA • The DPR has set the agenda of changing the UUPA as one of the priorities of legislative work in 2005. The DPR has issued the 2005-2009 National Legislation Program document in which 229 (two hundred and twenty-nine) drafted by the National Legislation Body (BALEG) of DPR. In this document, one of the agendas is the drafting of a "Bill on Amendment to Law No.5 of 1960 on Basic Agrarian Law". In addition, the Baleg has also received proposals on the Agricultural Land Abuse Bill and various sectoral laws that continue to be pushed to be resolved, one of which is unstoppable is the Capital Investment Bill which includes the granting of permits to the owners of capital to control land in Indonesia up to 95 years. • In relation to the idea of the revision of the 1960 UUPA, I personally think of the following: • First, the improvement of the UUPA must give meaning to strengthening the popular spirit contained in it. Improvements must add both the contents of the Loga, instead of removing or replacing them with laws of enthusiasm and entirely new content.
35. Debate on the Revision of UUPA • Secondly, refining UUPA 1960 must be done carefully so as not to be dragged by the interests of globalization of capitalism that want to establish their economic-political interests in agrarian field. • Thirdly, the improvement of UUPA should strengthen its position as an umbrella for agrarian legislation. Arrangements on forestry, plantation, mining, water, agriculture, coastal and marine sectors, etc. should refer to the UUPA. • Fourth, the process of improving the UUPA should be done democratically and participatively. In addition to involving state departments and institutions, as well as experts and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) whose integrity is tested. And the most important thing to talk to is the people most concerned about agrarian, ie union of farmers, nelaan, indigenous peoples and small people in general, with attention to the balance of participation of men and women.36. Conclusion • The errors of agrarian policy development in the colonial era and the inconsistency of implementing UUPA No.5 / 1960 have so far resulted in continuing and increasingly severe and widespread poverty, ultimately encouraging migration and putting villagers in a vulnerable condition to become victims of trafficking in persons . Above has been mentioned about the migration of which 70% of them women. The men in the women who were displaced from the villages (because of the lack of goodwill of the state to build education for the people) they then fell into abusive labor and did not have legal protection, such as construction laborers, domestic workers and even at work which is considered not to have the dignity of humanity / prostitution and become commodity merchandise.37. Conclusion • The lack of clarity of agrarian policy can no longer be ignored, the most urgent step in this case is the arrangement of policies so that all agrarian related policies to all have the same spirit, which respects the people's sovereignty over the Indonesian earth by not making the land as a commodity or incentive capital inflow. To this end, the legislature and the executive must sit together and seriously make clear priorities taking into account the interests of small farmers, small fishermen, and urban poor. They are the elements of the nation most attached to the land for their livelihood.38. Concluding Remarks • On the other hand, civil society elements must also improve capacity in lobbying policies. Farmers' organizations, fishermen and others can not only use methods of demonstration to make changes. The support of their information and experience of conflict and land-related issues of life is indispensable in formulating policies that can truly provide prosperity for the people. The ability to formulate that experience into a traceable exposure and a logical policy proposal is essential to begin developing. Likewise various ways to build support for these proposals from various decision-makers.
Written by: Dr.KPH.Adip.Praboewidjojo, SH, MH
1. Agrarian Policy • Agrarian Policy in Indonesia can not be separated from the history of the Indonesian nation. Therefore, in the presentation of Agrarian Policy is used chronological approach with tracing from the Dutch colonial period in Indonesia. To facilitate understanding then the exposure will be divided according to the period of time following the political changes taking place in the history of our nation, given that policy is a political product.
2. Colonial Period • In the days of the Dutch colonial government introduced the agrarian policy known as Agrarische Wet 1870 in the Dutch East Indies. The Agrarian Law of 1870 then opened the door for the entry of large foreign private capital, particularly the Netherlands to Indonesia, and a large number of large estates in Java and Sumatera were born. It turns out later, this large plantation economic system is miserable to the people.
3. Colonial era • Various criticisms from a number of Dutch intellectuals themselves against Agrische Wet 1870, including Prof. van Gelderen and others. • The words of Prof van Gelderen are well known, which to this day have also been widely quoted, namely: "The Indonesian nation (because of Agrarishce Wet's policy) will become a coelie nation", and become a "koelie among nations!". This is evident, not only with our historical record of contract coolies in plantations with a heartbreaking story, but a situation that continues to this day. We are witnessing today the phenomenon of migration from our countryside to big cities and even abroad, of which 70% more displaced from that hometown are women.
4. Colonial Period • Due to much criticism, the Dutch colonial government then conducted research on "declining people's welfare" (mindere welvaarts onderzoek- MWO). People's woes become proven! • The colonial government then took a policy move known as the "Ethical Policy" (Ethische Politiek): six improvement programs, namely irrigation, reforestation, colonization (transmigration), education, health and credit. • Ethical Policy (except health), direct or indirect, related to agrarian matters. But it did not change much. Even agrarian disputes are also widespread, and in 1929-1933, the Dutch East Indies suffered a very severe economic crisis.
5. Colonial Age Notes to Ethical Policy: • Education. Because Dutch colonialism is extractive, it extracts natural resources. New education was built in the early 20th century, and even then it was not university level. When Indonesia gained its independence in 1945, there is no university here yet. There are only a few "high schools" (engineering, medicine, law). What is the relevance of all this to the agrarian question? Different from the various countries of the former British or Spanish colonies, in Indonesia the number of "agrarian experts" became very limited, due to the backwardness of the education. Before Indonesia's independence, almost no fighters (civil or military) raised agrarian issues as a platform of struggle (except two, Soekarno and Iwa Kusuma Sumantri). • Rural Credit Programs in such ethical politics in its implementation in the rural areas experienced obstacles due to the conflict between the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Land of the Colonies. In Finance, important posts were occupied by Dutch officials dominated by neo-classical economic thinking (the school of Prof. Gongrijp), whereas the Dutch civil service was generally a neo-populist thinker (students of Prof. J. H. Boeke).
6. Japanese Occupation Period (1942-1945 / World War II) • Farmers are taxed 40% of the production of the land. This of course further exacerbates poverty. • Large estates become displaced by abandonment by their owners (Dutch and other foreign capital). With abandoned plantation lands and severe poverty in the community, people inhabited the abandoned estates. The Japanese occupation government turned out to tolerate even encourage people's actions. Sociologically, this reality has created a collective perception among the people, that it seems as though they have regained their rights to the land which was once annexed by the Dutch (and other foreign capital through the colonial Agrarian Law 1870).
7. Early Indonesian Independence (1945-1960) • Learning from the colonial experience, it is learned that the great plantation economic system is harming the people, especially because it has displaced the vast lands that were originally cultivated by the people. • After the Japanese surrendered to the Allied forces, General Mc Arthur ordered Emperor Hirohito to carry out Landreform. • Once independence, the founders of the Republic make the main focus in the socio-economic field must be put in the planning to "rearrange" the issue of ownership, empowerment and land use. About half a year of independent Indonesia, Vice President, Bung Hatta (as an economist) has described the problem of "Indonesia's economy in the future". Among his various important descriptions of the past, there are two points to be mentioned and later inspired the content and spirit of UUPA 1960), namely: (a) the large plantations were once the people's lands; (b) for the Indonesian people, the land should not be used as merchandise solely for profit (commercial commodities).
8. The beginning of Indonesia Merdeka (1945-1960) • Period 1945-1950: Land reform trial Law no. 13/1946 Landreform in Banyumas area. Emergency Law no. 13/1948 Landreform in the Special Region of Yogyakarta and Surakarta. • 1948 a State Committee was formed to develop thinking in order to prepare the new Agrarian Law, the National Law, to replace the colonial Agrarian Law 1870. • However, due to Dutch aggression (Clash 2, December 1948- August 1949) then the committee disbanded.
9. Early Indonesian Independence (1945-1960) • With various inputs from previous committees, the Committee finally succeeded in preparing a bill ready for submission to the House of Representatives. However, at the suggestion of President Soekarno, the bill was renewed by the cooperation of the House of Representatives with the University of Gajah Mada (UGM). • The results of the DPR-UGM cooperation were then submitted to the DPR. On 24 September 1960 the bill was passed by the House of Representatives and stipulated as Law no. 5/1960 on the Basic Regulations on the Fundamentals of Agaria (known as UUPA 1960). Thus the long process of birth of UUPA 1960.
10. Early Indonesian Independence (1945-1960) • Period 1950-1960: Situation dilemmatic On the one hand, the initial idea that the main project of reform is the plantation lands with erfpacht rights, absentee lands, former private lands, and abandoned lands. But, on the other hand, the government - even though it is back to the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia, and no longer the RIS as the KMB demands - remains bound by the KMB agreement which contains the provision that the people should be expelled from the estates owned by the Dutch private capital. Perhaps, this dilemma is one of the reasons that influence why the process of formulation of BAL becomes so long (12 years). • In 1957 Indonesia finally canceled the KMB agreement, and in 1958 nationalized large foreign-owned plantations, as well as through Law no. 1/1958 abolished private lands.
11. Period 1960-1965: Guided Democracy • Originally this period is planned as a target of the implementation of agrarian reform. But due to various upheavals, the concentration of government minds became divided. The various problems faced at that time, among others, because the government still have to face the problem of solving the remnants of PRRI / Permesta rebellion; the follow-up of plantation nationalization; the struggle for the return of West Irian; and confrontation with Malaysia. All these problems become the obstacles for the immediate implementation of agrarian reform. • On the other hand, since the 1960 UUPA contains only the basic rules, many articles will be further elaborated into more operational regulations or laws. However, because of the conditions as mentioned above, then it has largely not worked. The most important translation that has been done is the enactment of Law no. 56/1960 (originally in the form of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law), later popularly known as Landrform Law, namely "Determination of Land Area of Agriculture".
12. Period 1960-1965 / Guided Democracy • Due to the shortage of agrarian experts experienced in landrefom, the Minister of Agrarian Affairs (alamarhum Sadjarwo) consulted with an expert from the United States, namely Dr. Wolf Ladejinsky (former American Agricultural Attaché in Japan, who assisted General Mac Arthur while carrying out landrefom in Japan). • Ladejinsky Research Results: First, between the ideas and actions of the implementation is inconsistent, disconnected (disjointed). The idea is revolutionary but the institutionalization of its implementation is complicated. Bureaucracy in Indonesia is complicated. The data is not accurate, so the implementation of redistribution becomes difficult and has obstacles in the field. (Perhaps, this is also what politically encouraged the PKI to take unilateral action, which caused trauma and gave birth to the stigma that landrefom is the same as the PKI).13. Period 1960-1965 / Second Guided Democracy, the redistribution model is not in accordance with the existing objective conditions. The minimum limit of 2 hectares is applied thoroughly considered unrealistic. Some concepts, the definition is not clear. For example, who, and how many people are eligible for potential beneficiaries, and how many are expected to be real recipients (real benficiaries)? What lands will be the object of reform? PP. 224/1961 issued as a guideline for the implementation of UUPA is considered inconsistent with the ideal of UUPA.
14. Period 1960-1965 / Guided Democracy Other Expert Opinions Other Expert Opinions: Mc Auslan • Positive side of BAL is: (1) UUPA 1960 is the best legal product during RI history; (2) the framework, format and formulation "modern"; (3) in advance the framers already have "gender" sensitivity; and (4) have idealism abolish l'exploitation de l'homme par l'homme. The negative side is: (1) in the case of customary law, its link and placement in UUPA 1960 is not very clear; (2) his landreform program is also considered not too clear (similar to Ladejinsky's criticism); and (3) unanticipated possible obstacles. • Besides the existence of various other obstacles, according to him, there are two main obstacles in agrarian problems in Indonesia, namely: Legal obstacles. Both in the center and in the regions, the legal apparatus has not mastered the true agrarian issues. This is closely related to the second main constraint. Limited availability of experts / Scientific barriers (Mc Auslan term). Unlike other developing countries, in Indonesia which is actually a large country that is basically agrarian, the number of agricultural scientists is very limited. According to Mac Auslan, this is an irony. As a result, every time discussing agrarian, which is always discussed "agrarian law". In fact, agrarian covers almost all aspects of life (social, economic, cultural, environmental, and political, even defense).15. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • Old slogan: "Sovereign in politics, economic self-reliance, and personality in culture", crushed by a new slogan: "Politics no, economy yes!" The society drifts, and does not realize that The slogan itself is political! • The New Order's general policy is characterized by a number of characteristics, namely: (a) stability is a top priority; (b) in the socio-economic field, development depends on foreign debt, foreign capital, and betting on the strong; and (c) in the agrarian field adopted a policy of shortcut, the Green Revolution without Agrarian Reform. With such a policy, UUA 1960 is like entering a "coffin". That is, although not revoked, its existence is ignored.
16. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • In 1967 three laws that ignored the provisions contained in UUPA 1960 (UU PMA, Basic Forest Law, Mining Basic Law). • For about 11 years the BAL of 1960 was mistakenly perceived as a PKI product. This stigma is even still embedded in the minds of some of our society until now. • New in 1978 the existence of UUPA 1960 was reinstated as a "national product" (not a PKI product), after the report of research result from Committee Soemitro Djojohadikoesoemo (deceased) which at that time was Minister of Research and Technology. The return of attention to the existence of the 1960 UUPA - perhaps - also because of the invitation of the FAO to attend the World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development in Rome in 1979.17. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • In the 1979 Rome Conference, Indonesia sent a large delegation. The outcome of this conference is a document that in 1981 was published by FAO under the title Peasant's Charter (Peasant Charter). It is agreed that every two years every country will report the implementation of Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. No news, did Indonesia meet the agreement. • In 1981 at Selabintana Sukabumi (West Java) an international workshop was held on the same theme, as a follow-up to the Rome Conference, with the result accompanied by a recommendation to the Indonesian government. • The existence of the Farmers' Charter resulting from the meeting of Rome, and Selabintana's recommendations were not able to encourage the New Order government to "re-orient the policy". In fact, the overwhelming pride of self-sufficiency in food in 1984 has made the New Order overconfident that without an Agrarian Reform (through a "short cut") we will be able to prosper the people.18. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • It was later proven that food self-sufficiency did not last long. But this still does not make the New Order aware of what really happened. There is even a tendency to deviate far from the spirit of the 1945 Constitution and UUPA 1960. This digression began with the existence of various deregulation packages in the late 1980s to smooth the practice of liberal policy. • Although in the middle of the 1980s Indonesia achieved food self-sufficiency, social conflicts with the essence of agrarian issues have sprung up everywhere and nothing has been done to date. KPA 2001 data shows the number of cases reached 2834 cases that have been reported to various NGOs by the community since the New Order era in an effort to find support to defend their rights. Inventory of BPN reported to Commission II (18 September 2007) mentioned 7468 cases. Unfortunately the details of the location and the conflicting parties have never been delivered. • However, this fact is not enough to open the minds of leaders that the agrarian issue is a fundamental issue. Even tend to deviate from the spirit of UUPA 1960 more real when in the decade of the 1990s came a statement from an authorized official that "land as a strategic commodity" (contrary to the fatwa Bung Hatta as mentioned above)19`. Period 1965-1998 (New Order) • The various agrarian crises that occurred were not separated from the shambles in the agrarian legislation system (broadly). • Although theUUPA is reinforced, it does not help to overcome it, because some sectoral laws - which differ from the spirit of the UUPA 1960 have been in effect for so long, when the UUPA 1960 was reinforced, instead of clarification, but overlap. There is a strong impression that here and there legal engineering and manipulation to the extent that a policy refers to UUPA 1960, whereas in essence it is to facilitate foreign investment, in total contradiction to the basic ideals of UUPA 1960 (as happened in the Case Disputes in the New Clan: One of the Magersari residents whose father once received the assignment from the Eigendom Owner, heard that there was an issue that his New Kentingan would be used by officials, who later discovered that they (officials) .red) acquired these lands because they purchased at PT.Bengawan Permai through a mediator (middlemen or land mafia who cooperated with the National Land Agency) proved by their acknowledgment (in their Replik while suing the Magersari in Kentingan New, that they get the land is not from the grant of the state, and is the land of exchange with the guling land of Taman Jurug Wildlife in the 80s. The chronology is so that in the 70s the Municipality of Surakarta wanted to move animals from Taman Sriwedari to Jurug with management through investors, including land acquisition / kampong Taman Jurug(they are plaintiffs / certificate holder in this case are officials and business people .red, get the land by buying through PT.Bengawan Permai and not through procedural application to the National Land Agency, by occupying the first and have a gyr or a letter c first, but through the land mafia in cooperation with the National Land Agency). But because in the journey is not profitable, finally investors and Pt.Bengawan Permai asked the City Government to refund funds / shares pembanggaasan Jurug land. And at that time the city government no funds, then Pemkot exchange it with land Kentingan Baru.The above statement is very odd, as according to the applicable law, a person who wishes to own a piece of land from the State Land (TN) becomes a proprietary right, the requirement that the applicant must have juridical and physical control over the State Land (TN) to be applied for, and it is proven that the Replik in the principal matter is in the origin of the Persil mentioned the granting of land rights which is directly controlled by the State, thus the disputed land is the state land and not the land owned by the Government of Surakarta City, nor is it possible to exchange guling with the City Government of Surakarta, In this case the court case number 04 / Pdt.G / 2010 / PN.Ska in the Surakarta District Court can be concluded that: the material of Plaintiff's claim Sri Suryani less party and less complete, because Plaintiff Sri Suryani not reside and have population in Kentingan Baru (in Jl.KH.Maskur or Rt.03 / Rw.16 Jebres Sub-District Jebres Sub-District, Kota Surak arta .red), does not control the jurisdiction or physical object of the disputed land, because Sri Suryani obtained the certificate illegally or not procedurally, because it is clear that the state land can not be exchanged, so the certificate is defective by law, and full of engineering.).
20. Post New Order • Presidency of B.J. Habibie is in fact an intention to review the policy of land reform. Once formed the Committee under the leadership of Prof. Dr. Muladi, S.H. But have not had time to work this committee, there has been a change of president. The committee is then unclearly reported.21. Post-New Order • In the era of President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur), his statement was stirred, that 40% of the plantation lands should be distributed to the people. Euphoria of freedom as a result of the fall of the New Order has spawned a variety of people's organizations (unions and fishermen, trade unions, women's organizations and others, including the emergence of dozens of political parties), as well as inhabitants occupy the land left abandoned by the owner / who controls it. Agrarian issues were lifted back to the surface by the insistence of various farming organizations / fishermen and various NGOs.22. Post-New Order Megawati's presidency: • At the beginning of his reign the Megawati Government has not demonstrated the certainty of the position on agrarian issues. • Meanwhile, among civil society, National Farmers Conference (April 2001) attended by various farmer organizations, various NGOs, as well as Komnas HAM, as one of its pemrakarsanya. The conference gave birth to a "Declaration on the Rights of Peasants". • Realizing the harshness of the people at that time, some members of the MPR election results in 1999 quite responsive. So the BP MPR in agrarian field then conducted various dialogues with various farmer organizations and NGOs, followed by the holding of two big workshops in Bandung in September / October 2001. The result was the birth of MPR TAP no. IX / 2001 on Agrarian Reform and Natural Resource Management.23. Post New Order • Seen from the spirit of UUPA 1960, the content of this TAP is indeed ambiguous. However, however, it must be accepted that it is the maximum result that can be achieved as a result of the compromise of the struggles of various interests. Even TAP as it is now may not even be born if there is no support group pressure in the form of a demo of about 12,000 members of various Peasant Union. Content of MPR Decree No. IX / 2001 is basically a kind of "order", either to the President or to the Parliament, to take follow-up action. When there was no sign of a response from both the DPR and the president in 2003, Komnas HAM, along with several NGOs and peasant organizations, took another initiative, formulating a proposal to President Megawati to establish KNUPKA (National Committee for Combating Agrarian Conflict). The president's response was positive, but, once again, not yet had this concept realized after the turn of the president took place. • Meanwhile, at the end of his term President Megawati issued Presidential Decree no. 34/2003 which mandates the National Land Agency (BPN) to draft a bill on "refinement" of UUPA 1960. With the change of president, the problem is also experiencing a progress that is not smooth.24. Post-New Order SBY's presidency: • Mandate to BPN to make "improvements" of UUPA 1960 still apply, and the process of refinement is still going on. But the result is not a refinement, but a total change to the UUPA. • Presidential Regulation no. 36/2005 (on infrastructure) that invites community reactions. This Presidential Regulation has caused widespread unrest in the community.25. Post New Order • Presidential Regulation no. 10/2006 on the internal restructuring of BPN institutions. One of the positives, perhaps is the establishment of Deputy for Assessment and Handling of Disputes and Agrarian Conflict. But how the results of our work have not heard any further. What is surprising is that in order to support the settlement of agrarian conflict has signed a joint decision between the Chairman of BPN and KAPOLRI on the Handling of Agrarian Conflict which approach is feared will make the widespread violence by the state apparatus to the parties involved in the conflict, in this case especially the masses peasants or other people who occupy the disputed lands facing the capital, especially since until now we have not fully managed to separate the POLRI from its military character and we have not seen a change in the attitude of our bureaucrats fundamentally which for many years is accustomed to the workings of character betting on the strong.
26. Post-New Order • Fourthly, in addition to these three points, it should be noted that in March 2006 just recently, Indonesia has sent a delegation to attend ICARRD (International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development) in Porto Alegre, Brazil, 7 -10 March 2006. But there is no clear direction from the national leadership, what mission should be carried by this delegation so that this is just a chance to walk the members of the government delegation. There are no results that people can see from this visit.27. Post New Order • Redistribution of land for farmers campaigned by SBY. Which land will be redistributed. Let's look at the data !!!28. Data of Agrarian Structure No. Land Usage Land Area (million Ha) 1 Total Land Area of Indonesia 192,26 2 Oil and Gas Working Contract 95.45 96, 81 3 Contract of Work of Minerals 6,47 90,34 4 Coal Contract of Work 24,77 65,57 5 KKB / PKP2PB 5.2 60,37 6 HPH 27,72 32.65 7 HTI 3,40 29,25 8 State Plantation 3,30 25,95 9 Private Plantation 1.08 24,87 11 Agricultural land 11,80 13,07 13 Housing , Shops, Offices, 14,00 * Industries etc.29. Conclusions: Approximately, if the land distribution program is implemented, what will be distributed is the former plantations of barren land that !! So. Farmers should not be swept away by exaggerated beautiful dreams with this campaign. However, this program should still be urged to be implemented immediately, prioritizing farmers in the area of conflict closest to the distribution location.
30. Debate on the Revision of UUPA Noer Fauzi (1999), there are 4 (four) reasons for revising the UUPA: • First Group, those who think that the UUPA and all other legislation must be made in good faith to guarantee the rights and obligations of the community , so of course UUPA and its implementing regulations are very reliable as a means of protecting the rights of disadvantaged communities. The issue of land grabs is judged to occur because of deviations from officials behaving deviant in using their authority. This version considers there is no need for any revision of the UUPA, which is required only for implementation updates.
31. Debate on the Revision of UUPA • The second category, are those who believe that the UUPA is a legal product that contains guarantees of community rights, but it is covered by various laws and regulations that distort the mandate of the UUPA. UUPA is a responsive character produced during the Old Order, but it is covered by various laws and regulations produced by the New Order that are generally repressive. In another formula, it is stated that UUPA is populist but surrounded by capitalistic rules. This group perceives land grabbing due to the orientation of the New Order regime's development which prioritizes the growth of industrial capital and government projects rather than the interests of the masses of agrarian populations. The agrarian law produced is a sub-system of economic growth, so its orientation is to provide legality support to large investors as well as government projects.Like the issue that the Kentingan Baru of the land will be used for the share by the officials, who later discovered that they (the officials of the officials) get the land because they bought it to PT.Bengawan Permai through a mediator ( brokers or land mafia who cooperate with unscrupulous National Land Agency). This is proven by their acknowledgment (in their Replik when they sued the Magersari citizens in Kentingan Baru, that they got the land not from the state grant, and it was a land swap with the land of Taman Jurug Wildlife in the 80s. 70s Surakarta city government wants to move animals from Taman Sriwedari to Jurug with management through investor, including land acquisition / village of Jurug park (they are plaintiff / certificate holder which in this case are officials and businessman .red, get the land by way of buying through PT.Bengawan Permai and not through procedural application to the National Land Agency, by occupying the first and have girik or letter c first, but through the land mafia in cooperation with the National Land Agency) .But because the journey is not profitable , finally investors and Pt.Bengawan Permai asked to in the municipal government to refund funds / shares pembanggaasan Jurug land. And at that time the city government no funds, then the city government exchange it with land Kentingan Baru.The above statement is very odd, as according to the applicable law, a person who wishes to own a piece of land from the State Land (TN) becomes a proprietary right, the requirement that the applicant must have juridical and physical control over the State Land (TN) to be applied for, and it is proven that the Replik in the principal matter is in the origin of the Persil mentioned the granting of land rights which is directly controlled by the State, thus the disputed land is the state land and not the land owned by the Government of Surakarta City, nor is it possible to exchange guling with the Government of Surakarta, because Sri Suryani (one of the examples of investors) is illegally or illegally certified, because it is clear that the state land can not be exchanged or sold, so the certificate is defective by law, and full of engineering. From the example of land dispute case in Kentingan Baru this is visible that the Government in this case Pemer the city of Surakarta prioritizes giving legitimate support to big investors rather than the interests of the people in terms of the interests of land tenure.
32. Debate on the Revision of UUPA • The third category, those who embrace free-market ideology and see that a rented and collective bureaucracy makes 'land procurement for development' a part of the creator of high economic costs, and hence the role bureaucracy should be reduced to a minimum. The agrarian law must be reformed in order to create a 'comfort' for business people. UUPA is a big hurdle, because with the UUPA state intervention on the procurement of land is too large. The issues of popular resistance to land grabbing, overlapping of land allocations and the failure of dispute resolution are an obstacle to both domestic and foreign investment.
33. Debate surrounding the Revision of UUPA High cost economic should be cut through the dismantling of the power of state intervention in the economy, especially in the market. This group promotes what they call an efficient land market, where the land market is the main road for businesses to acquire lands as the base of their business. The main answer to land disputes is the consolidation of the legal status of all land parcels through land registration programs. But, at the same time with this, the business sector can acquire land without the need to hoard significant difficulties. • The fourth category, which places the UUPA as a legal product that needs to be viewed critically. It is argued that there is no denying the existence of the irregularities in the use of authority from officials in connection with the rampant agrarian dispute - as pointed out by the first group. It is also undeniable that there are a number of government regulations covering the capitalist-oriented UUPA, and there are also regulations that deviate from the UUPA. However, the failure of UUPA is also perceived as a contributor to the creation of agrarian disputes that are rampant more in the past fifteen years.
34. Debate on the Revision of UUPA • The DPR has set the agenda of changing the UUPA as one of the priorities of legislative work in 2005. The DPR has issued the 2005-2009 National Legislation Program document in which 229 (two hundred and twenty-nine) drafted by the National Legislation Body (BALEG) of DPR. In this document, one of the agendas is the drafting of a "Bill on Amendment to Law No.5 of 1960 on Basic Agrarian Law". In addition, the Baleg has also received proposals on the Agricultural Land Abuse Bill and various sectoral laws that continue to be pushed to be resolved, one of which is unstoppable is the Capital Investment Bill which includes the granting of permits to the owners of capital to control land in Indonesia up to 95 years. • In relation to the idea of the revision of the 1960 UUPA, I personally think of the following: • First, the improvement of the UUPA must give meaning to strengthening the popular spirit contained in it. Improvements must add both the contents of the Loga, instead of removing or replacing them with laws of enthusiasm and entirely new content.
35. Debate on the Revision of UUPA • Secondly, refining UUPA 1960 must be done carefully so as not to be dragged by the interests of globalization of capitalism that want to establish their economic-political interests in agrarian field. • Thirdly, the improvement of UUPA should strengthen its position as an umbrella for agrarian legislation. Arrangements on forestry, plantation, mining, water, agriculture, coastal and marine sectors, etc. should refer to the UUPA. • Fourth, the process of improving the UUPA should be done democratically and participatively. In addition to involving state departments and institutions, as well as experts and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) whose integrity is tested. And the most important thing to talk to is the people most concerned about agrarian, ie union of farmers, nelaan, indigenous peoples and small people in general, with attention to the balance of participation of men and women.36. Conclusion • The errors of agrarian policy development in the colonial era and the inconsistency of implementing UUPA No.5 / 1960 have so far resulted in continuing and increasingly severe and widespread poverty, ultimately encouraging migration and putting villagers in a vulnerable condition to become victims of trafficking in persons . Above has been mentioned about the migration of which 70% of them women. The men in the women who were displaced from the villages (because of the lack of goodwill of the state to build education for the people) they then fell into abusive labor and did not have legal protection, such as construction laborers, domestic workers and even at work which is considered not to have the dignity of humanity / prostitution and become commodity merchandise.37. Conclusion • The lack of clarity of agrarian policy can no longer be ignored, the most urgent step in this case is the arrangement of policies so that all agrarian related policies to all have the same spirit, which respects the people's sovereignty over the Indonesian earth by not making the land as a commodity or incentive capital inflow. To this end, the legislature and the executive must sit together and seriously make clear priorities taking into account the interests of small farmers, small fishermen, and urban poor. They are the elements of the nation most attached to the land for their livelihood.38. Concluding Remarks • On the other hand, civil society elements must also improve capacity in lobbying policies. Farmers' organizations, fishermen and others can not only use methods of demonstration to make changes. The support of their information and experience of conflict and land-related issues of life is indispensable in formulating policies that can truly provide prosperity for the people. The ability to formulate that experience into a traceable exposure and a logical policy proposal is essential to begin developing. Likewise various ways to build support for these proposals from various decision-makers.
Komentar
Posting Komentar