Secretary-General of the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency testifying for Case No. 64/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the Basic Agrarian Law 1960, Tuesday (5/19/2026). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held another hearing for the material judicial review of Basic Agrarian Law No. 5 of 1960 (UUPA) on Tuesday, May 19, 2026. The fourth session for the petition filed by Ariyanto Zalukhu, Desimeni Larosa, Christina W. Zega, Masnidarti Harefa, and Vendy Setiawan (Petitioners I-V) heard the House of Representatives’ (DPR) and the President/Government’s testimonies.
In response to Petition No. 64/PUU-XXIV/2026, through Secretary-General of the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) Dalu Agung Darmawan, the Government explained that the land registration mechanism under the national legal system has incorporated principles of transparency and public disclosure, among others through Article 26 of Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997, which requires the announcement of physical and juridical data in order to provide interested parties with an opportunity to submit objections.
In practice, Dalu Agung continued, the land registration process also involves the collection of field data, examination of land history, and the participation of village/sub-district officials and local communities to ensure verification of land possession. In addition, the application of the principle of contradictory delimitation requires the involvement of landowners and neighboring landholders in determining land boundaries to prevent overlapping claims.
The provisions regarding such public announcements are further strengthened under Government Regulation No. 18 of 2021, which regulates the announcement period in the context of land registration, both systematic and sporadic registration. Landowners and landholders are also given the opportunity to demonstrate ownership through the installation and maintenance of boundary markers approved by neighboring landholders.
“Thus, the land law system has essentially provided avenues for community participation, verification, and objections in the land registration process. The land law system also continues to provide avenues for parties who consider themselves aggrieved to defend their rights through civil lawsuits or administrative lawsuits against the issuance of land certificates,” Dalu Agung explained.
Rights of Customary Law Communities
In response to the Petitioners’ argument essentially asserting that “Article 19 paragraph (1) of the Basic Agrarian Law has not provided adequate protection, particularly for customary land and old land rights,” the Government firmly recognizes and respects the rights of customary law communities as stipulated under Article 3 of the UUPA and in line with Article 18B paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. Accordingly, it is inaccurate to claim that the provision a quo disregards the existence of customary rights.
“Land registration, including registration of customary land and old land rights, is in fact intended as a means of providing stronger legal protection through registration and the issuance of certificates as evidence of rights. Without registration, customary land and old land rights would actually be more vulnerable to encroachment and claims by other parties,” Dalu Agung explained.
In this regard, the Government has even implemented various policies to expand access to land registration, including through the complete systematic land registration program (PTSL), simplification of procedures, and reduction of costs so that communities facing economic, social, or geographical limitations may still register their land.
“Through PTSL, the State conducts land registration by mapping all plots of land village by village, involving local village and customary law officials in a participatory manner to identify the historical background of old land rights. The transformation of the land registration system from Government Regulation No. 10 of 1961 to PTSL represents a manifestation of the State’s constitutional responsibility to provide adequate legal protection. The Government emphasizes that land registration is not intended to eliminate old rights, but rather to provide concrete legal certainty through the transformation of old proof of ownership into certificates as strong evidence of rights,” Dalu Agung emphasized.
Communal Land Rights
Accordingly, Dalu Agung further explained that Article 19 paragraph (1) of the UUPA is not a provision concerning the revocation of rights, expropriation of rights, or limitation of property rights. On the contrary, this provision serves as a mechanism for protecting constitutional rights to land. Indonesia’s land registration system is fundamentally inclusive, as it continues to recognize the existence and historical background of old rights. Theoretically, land rights may arise prior to registration, while land registration functions as an instrument of publication and proof of the existence of such rights.
“Thus, communal land right remains recognized and is given future legal certainty through certification mechanisms. With regard to the possibility of neglect of customary land rights or old land rights in the registration process, the legal system continues to provide mechanisms for objections, evidentiary proceedings, and dispute resolution so that such rights may still be protected and restored,” Dalu Agung stated.
Forms of Protection of Land Rights
Meanwhile, through its statement delivered by Commission II member Sarifudin Sudding, the House stated that through Law No. 5 of 1960, the State established a land administration system through land registration across the territory of Indonesia to ensure legal certainty over land rights for rights holders. The General Provisions of the Law a quo explains that land registration constitutes a registration system intended to provide legal certainty for both rights holders and other interested parties.
To understand the spirit of Article 19 paragraph (1) of the UUPA, Sarifudin continued, it cannot be separated from the historical and political context underlying the enactment of the law. Prior to the implementation of this provision, the agrarian legal system was characterized by dualism, which not only created legal uncertainty but also placed indigenous people in a legally unprotected position. Land registration under the provision a quo was therefore established to protect, rather than exclude, the people’s historically existing land rights.
Accordingly, interpreting the provision a quo as a norm that threatens legal certainty would amount to a reversal of the decolonization spirit underlying its enactment. Article 19 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5 of 1960 cannot be understood as an isolated provision. At least four layers of land rights protection are embedded within it.
First, recognition of customary rights, as provided under Article 3 of Law No. 5 of 1960, which recognizes communal land rights (hak ulayat) of customary law communities that continue to exist, and Article 5 of Law No. 5 of 1960, which establishes customary law as the foundation of national agrarian law. These two provisions serve as the foundation ensuring that historically existing rights are recognized and protected.
The second layer is the recognition of land rights under Articles 16–18 of Law No. 5 of 1960, which regulate various types of land rights and provide certainty concerning each of those rights. Third, registration as proof of rights: Article 19 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5 of 1960 mandates the establishment of a registration system as an instrument to realize formal legal certainty regarding rights already recognized under the previous layers. Fourth, dispute resolution: although Law No. 5 of 1960 does not specifically regulate land dispute resolution mechanisms, the national legal system provides various dispute settlement forums, including actions for certificate cancellation through administrative courts and administrative remedies.
Land registration under Article 19 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5 of 1960 has been further regulated under Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 and other implementing regulations. Land registration includes a series of activities, namely land measurement, mapping, and registration; registration of land rights and their transfer; and issuance of certificates of title serving as strong evidence of rights. As a consequence of land registration, rights holders are issued certificates containing physical and juridical data regarding land parcels, as stipulated under Article 19 paragraph (2) letter c of Law No. 5 of 1960.
“With regard to the accuracy of the data contained in certificates, this cannot be separated from the land registration publication system adopted by Indonesia, under which certificates constitute strong but not absolute evidence. This means that the physical and juridical data contained in certificates must be presumed accurate unless proven otherwise. To ensure balanced legal certainty, Article 32 of Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 also provides clear limitations and legal safeguards; although certificates are recognized as strong evidence, opportunities remain available for other parties to submit objections or lawsuits if they believe they possess stronger rights,” Sudding explained.
Also read:
Customary Law Community Members Questions Land Registration
Customary Law Community Members Affirm Constitutional Harm Due to Land Registration Issue
House, Govt Unprepared to Respond to Petition on Land Registration
At the preliminary hearing on Friday, February 20, Vendy Setiawan, representing the Petitioners, explained that Petitioner I is a member of a customary law community who controls, manages, and utilizes customary land as his living space, obtained and inherited for generations based on customary law recognized within his community. Such land has not been given a land title certificate. The absence of a certificate is not due to the absence of rights, but rather structural factors such as economic limitations, limited access to land registration services, minimal state assistance, and the continued operation of customary land tenure systems that have long been socially and historically recognized.
However, the Petitioners believe Article 19 paragraph (1) of the Basic Agrarian Law, which mandates land registration to obtain legal certainty, has placed the customary land controlled by Petitioner I in a vulnerable position. Normatively, unregistered land is positioned as land without legal certainty. Meanwhile, Petitioners II through IV are the lawful heirs of owners of customary land legally acquired by the Petitioners’ parents through sale and purchase deeds dated August 6, 1956; January 25, 1958; and October 7, 1969. Some of these deeds were executed before the enactment of the Law a quo and some after. The land has been physically managed for a very long period without registration or issuance of certificates. However, in 2023 and 2025, certain members of the Nias Regency DPRD (Regional Legislative Council) and civil servants at the Gunungsitoli City Office claimed to possess land title certificates over approximately ±5,000 m² of the Petitioners’ land and constructed buildings that factually overlap with land long controlled and managed by the Petitioners’ families.
As a direct consequence of the enforcement of the norm a quo, the Petitioners have suffered real and actual constitutional losses, including: loss of control and utilization of customary land that constitutes the families’ source of livelihood; deprivation of property rights and housing rights as guaranteed by Article 28H paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution; and loss of legal certainty and fair legal protection as guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, because certificates are positioned as absolute proof without room to prove pre-existing rights.
Meanwhile, Petitioner V is an Indonesian citizen who once assisted administrative activities at a land office as a volunteer, and therefore was not equipped with legal authority, formal administrative responsibility, or institutional protection from the state. However, the absence of regulation regarding state responsibility in Article 19 of the Basic Agrarian Law has resulted in the burden of state administrative failures being unlawfully shifted to individual citizens, including Petitioner V. Thus, the institutional responsibility of the State has transformed into a personal burden on citizens without legal basis.
In their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to: “Declare Article 19 paragraph (1) of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Principles (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1960 No. 104, Supplement to State Gazette No. 2043) conditionally unconstitutional, insofar as the phrase ‘to ensure legal certainty by the Government’ is not interpreted as: ‘The Government’s obligation to conduct land registration to ensure legal certainty must be interpreted as an active obligation of the State to guarantee the material accuracy of physical and juridical data in land registration, to bear legal responsibility for every error and administrative defect arising from the implementation of land registration, and not to disregard the validity of rights that have historically and sociologically existed, including the rights of customary law communities as well as customary land and long-held land that have been physically controlled and inherited from generation to generation.’”
Explore case No. 64/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian).
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : N. Rosi
PR : Fauzan F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Tuesday, May 19, 2026 | 15:44 WIB 58