Statement of Position
Jakarta, August 13th 2019
The Discussion of Land Bill Draft (RUUP), which concerns the livelihood of many people currently are being discussed by The Indonesian Republics House of Representatives and its government. Without considering the qualities of RUUP and current agrarian situation, the legislator (House of Representatives and Governement insisted to ratify RUUP this September.
Meanwhile, Indonesia is in the midst of experiencing 5 (Five) Points of Agrarian Crisis, which are: (1) The sharp inequality of agrarian structures; (2) The rise of structural agrarian conflicts; (3) The expanding of ecological damages; (4) The fast transfer rate of agricultural lands to non-agricultural lands; (5) Poverty due to the oppressive agrarian structure.
Therefore, the RUUP must be able to solve the above 5 points of agrarian crises triggered by the land issues. Referencing to the last RUUP drafts, we views that the RUUP has failed in solving the 5 agrarian crises occurred. The Bills relevant to land issues should have been the basis of our Nation and State to actualize agrarian justice as aspired by Article 33 of 1945 Constitution, IX People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) Resolutions of 2011 on Agrarian Reform and Management of Natural Resources (PA-PSDA) and Bill no.5 of 1960 on the Basic Rules of Agrarian Principles (UUPA 1960).
The Fundamental Issues of this RUUP are:
1. RUUP is contradicting the UUPA 1960. Even though it is stated within its considerant that the RUUP is complementing and perfecting the issues that has not yet been arranged by UUPA, but its substances are still farther away and even contradicting with UUPA 1960.
2. Management Rights (HPL/ Hak Pengelolaan) and Deviations of the State’s Rights to Control (HMN/Hak Menguasai dari Negara). The HPL has been causing chaos in land control and resurrected the domein verklaring concept that has been expressly erased by UUPA 1960.
The State’s Rights to Control (HMN) which has been set by the Verdict of Constitutional Court No. 001-021-022/PUU-1/2003 has been distortedly translated by RUUP to become a new Permit called Management Rights (HPL).
3. Problems of Rights to Cultivate permit (HGU/Hak Guna Usaha). In RUUP, HGU are still prioritized by large scale investors, the maximum limitation of plantation concessions does not factor in the areas width, population density and the carrying capacity of the environment. The other problem is that RUUP arranged the impunity of large scale land ownership (plantation) if they went against the broad provisions for the rights.
RUUP also does not arrange the obligation of HGU information transparency as mandated by the Laws of Public Information Transparency and Verdict of the Supreme Court.
4. Contradicting With the Agrarian Reform Agenda & Spirit (RA). There are contradictions between the reform spirit within the considerants and general requirements of RUUP with its contents (body). First, Agrarian Reform in RUUP has been dwarfed to become just a program of asset & access structuring. RUUP does not contain the principles, purposes, mechanisms, executing agencies, funding to guarantee the genuine agrarian reform, which is the State operation to systematically & structurally reform the inequality of agrarian structure in Indonesia and implementing it within the clear time frame. There are no priorities in the Agrarian Reform Subjects & Objects to ensure that it could go in line with the agrarian reform objectives in Indonesia. Second, the Agrarian Reform spirit within RUUP is very partial (only limited to the Chapter of Agrarian Reform), but does not portrayed in other chapters related to the new formulations on Land Rights (Management Rights, HM, HGU, HGB, Usage Rights), Land Registration, Land Procurement, Land Bank and Court of Land Issues.
5. Void of Agrarian Conflict Resolutions. RUUP does not arrange how to resolve the structural agrarian conflicts in all sectors. RUUP considers agrarian conflict similar to ordinary land dispute, which plan of settlement only through “win-win solution” or mediation and Court of Land Issues. Even though, the characteristic of structural agrarian conflict is considered as extaordinary crime, which is broadly effected socially, economically, culturally, ecologically and causing death. A breakthrough in agrarian conflict resolution Urgently needed as soon as possible within the framework of Agrarian Reform not through Court of Land Issues.
6. The Sectoralism Issues of Land & Land Registration. Land Registration within RUUP is not a translation of the land registration aspired by UUPA 1960 on the government’s obligation to register all the lands within the areas of the Republic of Indonesia, beginning from the registration from village to village until Indonesia possesses the agrarian data that are accurate and complete to determine the direction of national development strategy and the fulfillment of the people’s agrarian rights.
Land registration within RUUP is simply to accelerate land certification and discriminative toward agrarian conflict areas, indigenous territories and villages that are overlapping with the plantation and forest concessions. Another problem is the goal of single land administration system will be difficult to achieve, if RUUP does not implemented thoughout all regions of Indonesia.
7. The Violation of Indigenous People’s Communal Rights. This constitution is clearly acknowledges the existence of Indigenous People and their traditional rights. However, RUUP has no concrete and precise steps within the administration and protection of the indigenous people’s communal rights or anything similar to that.
8. The Danger of Land Procurement and Land Bank. The will of RUUP to establish Land Bank, seem to only answer the complaint of investors on the obstacles of procuring and consolidating lands for infrastructures development.
The Land Bank that will be established by the govenrment is a non-profit agency which funding not only comes from the State Budget (Anggaran Pendapatan Belanja Negara) but also from equity capital, third party cooperation, loan and other sources.
If established, the Land Bank will add the risk factors for worsening inequality, conflicts, smoothing the processes of forced land-grabbing on behalf of land procurement and continuing the practices of land speculators.
It is ironic that the sources of land for the Land Bank are coming from the State-owned Lands making it potentially obstructing the Agrarian Reform Agenda.
Based on the eight points of isssues above, then we as the representatives of civil society organizations, peasant movements, indigenous people, fisherfolks, agrarian academicians & experts concludes that RUUP/Land Bill Draft does not fulfill the ideological, socilogical categories and contradicting with the Article 33 of 1945 Indonesian National Constitution and Basic Agrarian Laws of 1960. Even worse, the RUUP possess the characters of Neoliberalist Capitalism.
With those considerations, we are against the RUUP that is currently formulated by The Indonesian House of Representatives & Government, also urges that the Chairman of Legislative Assembly and the President of Indonesia to cancel the ratification of RUUP.
Thus, this Statement of Position is made to be the concern of all parties.
Agrarian Reform Movements Experts & Activists:
Civil Society Organizations:
Contact: Dewi Kartika - 0813 9447 5484
Jl. Pancoran Indah I Blok E3 No.1
Komplek Liga Mas Indah, Pancoran
Jakarta Selatan 12760, Indonesia
Telp: +62 21 7984540 Fax: +62 21 7993934