Land Ownership Dispute

Disputes regarding land ownership in our country today increasingly make no sense.

Kompas daily, on May 7, in a clear and detailed manner, explained how the land syndicates or so-called “mafia” in Jakarta had paralyzed our conscience and common sense. Collusion (Patgulipat) and the evil conspiracy between the mafia and state institutions have gone beyond limits.

Jakarta is a grim picture of the land ownership dispute in this country because in other areas, it also occurs even though the methods are different. To be sure, land syndicates are a clear and present danger to our country today.

The most recent case that intrigues us and our sense of justice is the land dispute in Makassar. Some people have claimed ownership of several plots of certified land that are owned by the government only with rincik (documents) issued in 1942 and 1958.

Also read:

> Land Mafias Widely Spread in Jakarta

> From Stroke to Death

Ironically, our judicial institution has ratified that illegal ownership claim. Those same people have won five cases, including the people\'s market, the toll road, the largest mosque in the city, the port and the land where Hasanuddin University\'s farming laboratory are located. The plots of land are several hectares in size.

Amazingly, instead of defending the state assets, when the case was still in the trial process at the court, especially regarding the land occupied by the mosque, a high-ranking state official at the State Palace sent a letter to the local administration as the owner of the land certificate to postpone hibah (granting) the land to other parties. At that time, the local administration wanted to donate the land to the foundation that manages the mosque.

So, unsurprisingly, there are rumors about the involvement or intervention of an official who has a strong interest in the group of people who claimed ownership of the land. To make it worse, the official\'s portfolio or position has no direct responsibility in land affairs. It’s amazing, right?

Also read: Strengthening the land bill

In other areas, the same thing has also happened. Documents and evidence of past ownership is used as a basis for the right to claim ownership of land that is owned by others, including state property. It is not uncommon for us to see many documents of past land ownership, such as girik and rincik, manipulated by using sophisticated technology, paper, printing, ink and signatures to create documents that appear to be genuine but are really fake.

These documents were used to rob land belonging to other people or land belonging to the state. In order for the robbery to look morally justified and to gain juridical legitimacy, a juridical mechanism is also pursued through an evil alliance with the state institution.

In pursuing this legal process, academics with doctoral and professor titles are also included as expert witnesses, even though these academics have absolutely no expertise in the subjects they are dealing with. The academy is often criticized and ridiculed by the term: professors who are skilled at testifying.

This is what is called a systematic crime: careful planning. High-precision and detailed action, extensive network involving many parties and courage to deceive extraordinarily. The perpetrators of these land disputes have a profoundly surplus of intrigue but a deficit in moral and legal balance.

Legal status of documents

Regardless of the authenticity or falsity of the documents they used in winning their lawsuit, the smell of fishy claims and legal rulings that justify them are strong.

Everyone understands that since Agrarian Law No. 5/1960 and all its derivatives came into effect, the issue of land ownership documents in our country has also changed. Everything must be neatly registered in clear codifications of the law. This is all meant to ensure legal certainty about the land and its owners.

Also read: Land Governance after Job Creation Law

Article 27 (3) of Agrarian Law No. 5/1960 stipulates that ownership of land is abolished when the owner of the land neglects his property. The phrase neglect here clearly refers to the act or attitude of not taking care of or neglecting his property. One indicator of the neglect of property rights is allowing the land to be controlled by other people. Another indicator of neglect is that land owners do not carry out their obligations to the state, namely paying taxes.

We are also dogged by the doctrine of confidentiality in this law that the basis or proof of customary ownership, for example, rincik, girik and so on, fail when the land is certified, unless there are other reasons over the land.

Kompas/Didie SW

.

In line with this, the principle of civil law also clearly states that if someone occupies land for a long time and the owner of the land ignores it, then his right to claim the land has been abolished.

So, it makes no sense if there is land that has been used by various parties for decades and has been certified and the owner just lets it go and does not pay taxes, then the heirs come to claim these lands as their property. In this context, we should fully understand the principle of land ownership in our country: land must be used and utilized.

Ownership of land is very different in nature from ownership of other objects because land must be utilized or used. If we have clothes, our ownership of them does not have to be maintained by wearing them over and over again.

Juridical steps

The state must not lose in dealing with the greed of people who use all means to claim ownership of land, especially if the land belongs to the state. There must be seriousness in criminalizing these people and all those involved in them, including the state apparatus.

The juridical step is not only to check whether the documents used are authentic or not, but also the application and use of logic and substance of Agrarian Law No. 5/1960 and all its derivative regulations. Anyone who tries to use past documents after the enactment of the law is reasonably suspected that they have bad intent.

Especially if this is allowed or legalized by state personnel themselves, including judges who easily legalize land ownership based on past documents that have been annulled by law.

We hope that the BPN, anywhere, will immediately carry out the digitization of village and subdistrict books related to land ownership, then match them with the data that the BPN has.

Also, it is a good idea for government agencies, especially those related to land issues, to have better coordination with a permanent working mechanism. There should be no rigid compartmental division only for the sake of institutional prestige. The National Land Agency (BPN), for example, should always coordinate with state prosecutors, police and courts regarding the status of land in its working area, especially if the land belongs to the state.

The BPN should be proactive in supplying information about the history and intricacies of the existence of land, which is the domain of its management and institutional responsibility, and not be inactive and wait passively.

KOMPAS/LASTI KURNIA

Hamid Awaluddin

In such a context, we hope that the BPN, anywhere, will immediately carry out the digitization of village and subdistrict books related to land ownership, then match them with the data that the BPN has. And, most importantly, the BPN must be open to anyone to provide land data, especially for pro justitia interests. For the Makassar land case, the BPN did not provide the data needed by the local government to maintain its property. Why? Wallahu a’lam bisshawab (God knows best).

Hamid Awaludin, Former law and human rights minister, lecturer at the School of Law, Hasanuddin University, Makassar

This article was translated by Kurniawan Siswoko.