Jejaring Rakyat Miskin Indonesia Urges DPR to Halt Individual Land Certificates in New Agrarian Reform Bill

Jakarta, CNN Indonesia — In a significant legislative hearing at the House of Representatives (DPR) in Jakarta on Thursday, September 10, a coalition representing Indonesia’s urban and rural grassroots communities formally submitted critical policy recommendations regarding the drafting of the Agrarian Reform Bill (RUU Pengaturan Reforma Agraria). The coalition, known as the Indonesian Urban Poor Network (Jejaring Rakyat Miskin Indonesia), which unites six major grassroots organizations, strongly urged the government and lawmakers to completely overhaul the current national approach to land redistribution. Specifically, they called for an immediate halt to the long-standing practice of distributing individual land ownership certificates to citizens, arguing that this strategy fundamentally fails to address deep-seated structural inequality and ultimately exacerbates the displacement of vulnerable populations.

The high-stakes hearing before the DPR’s Legislative Body (Baleg) served as a crucial platform for civil society actors to voice their concerns as lawmakers begin the arduous process of transforming the newly approved initiative bill into a comprehensive national statute. During the proceedings, Guntoro Gugun Muhammad, representing the coalition, delivered a compelling critique of current land administration policies, asserting that individual titling policies run counter to the core objectives of genuine agrarian reform.

The Core Argument: Why Individual Land Titling Fails the Poor

Gugun expressed profound skepticism that handing out individual certificates—such as the prominent Certificate of Ownership (Sertifikat Hak Milik or SHM) program heavily promoted by the administration—could ever successfully bridge the gap of land inequality or pull marginalized communities out of poverty.

"If agrarian reform aims to address or reduce inequality, but the state’s political policy still distributes land to individuals, I am pessimistic, Sir, Madam," Gugun stated firmly before the panel of legislators.

Elaborating on the systemic flaws of the individual titling model, Gugun highlighted the widespread circumvention of existing legal safeguards. While current regulations stipulate a mandatory 10-year moratorium prohibiting beneficiaries from selling or transferring state-distributed land, the coalition pointed out that this restriction is routinely violated in practice.

According to Gugun, informal, unrecorded transactions—commonly known in Indonesia as transactions "under the table" (transaksi di bawah tangan)—are pervasive. These informal sales effectively bypass legal protections, allowing land speculators and private market forces to rapidly reacquire redistributed plots, thereby defeating the primary social justice objective of the agrarian reform program.

Furthermore, the coalition argued that offering individual titles to low-income residents is a false choice. When given a binary option by the state, impoverished citizens will almost invariably opt for individual certificates due to immediate financial pressures and a lack of long-term economic security.

"If residents are asked whether they want an individual SHM or a collective one, they will definitely choose the individual one, Sir. So that is not a real choice," Gugun explained.

Proposed Solution: Collective Land Ownership and Urban Agrarian Strategies

Recognizing the limitations of individual ownership—particularly in dense urban environments where land scarcity is acute—the coalition proposed a paradigm shift toward collective land administration and ownership certificates (sertifikat bersama).

While acknowledging that transitioning entirely to collective titling overnight on a national scale might face bureaucratic and cultural hurdles, the coalition strongly advocated for the mandatory implementation of collective land certificates in metropolitan areas and urban centers. They outlined two primary justifications for this localized approach.

First, the rapid and aggressive transformation of urban spatial layouts, coupled with skyrocketing land values in cities like Jakarta, creates an environment where low-income urban dwellers are exceptionally vulnerable. Under individual ownership models, cash-poor residents are easily tempted or pressured into selling their minuscule plots, thereby losing their foothold in the city entirely.

Second, the sheer mathematics of urban poverty dictate that individual land allocations are simply too small to generate sustainable livelihoods. Gugun provided a stark comparative analysis during the hearing:

"If that is individualized, Sir, it is only 36 square meters per household. But once those parcels are combined, it becomes one hectare, Sir. With that scale, the land can be managed collectively, and joint business enterprises can be established for sustainable prosperity."

By pooling land resources into cooperative or collective trusts, urban communities can retain their assets, leverage economies of scale, secure formal housing, and develop community-based economic initiatives that protect them from eviction and cyclical poverty.

Legislative Context and the Path of the Agrarian Reform Bill

The debate surrounding the Agrarian Reform Bill comes at a critical juncture in Indonesian legislative history. Earlier in the week, the plenary session of the DPR officially ratified the Agrarian Reform Bill as an official parliamentary initiative, paving the way for detailed deliberations between the legislature and the executive branch.

The legislative framework aims to tackle long-standing structural inequities in land distribution, overlapping land claims between indigenous communities, corporations, and the state, as well as the overarching goal of promoting social justice through agrarian restructuring. A cornerstone of the proposed bill is the planned establishment of the National Agrarian Reform Agency (Badan Reforma Agraria Nasional or BRAN). This centralized body is envisioned to oversee, coordinate, and execute land redistribution efforts more effectively across the archipelago.

However, the inclusion of civil society voices—such as the Jejaring Rakyat Miskin Indonesia—highlights the intense ideological and practical battles playing out behind the scenes regarding how agrarian reform should be executed. While traditional bureaucratic approaches favor titling as a mechanism to bring informal assets into the formal financial system, grassroots advocates argue that without structural protections, formalization merely accelerates land dispossession through market mechanisms.

Background and Broader Implications of Agrarian Reform in Indonesia

Agrarian reform has long been a sensitive and politically charged issue in Indonesia. Following decades of heavy reliance on resource extraction, plantation expansion, and rapid urbanization, the country has faced chronic conflicts over land tenure. Smallholder farmers, indigenous populations, and urban informal settlers have frequently found themselves at a disadvantage against corporate agricultural and real estate interests.

In response, successive governments have launched massive land registration and certification programs aimed at clarifying property rights and reducing legal disputes. While these programs have successfully certified millions of hectares of land, critics and academic researchers have increasingly questioned their long-term socio-economic impact. Studies from various independent think tanks suggest that individual titling alone does not automatically translate into improved welfare or credit access for the poorest segments of society. In many instances, newly titled landowners quickly mortgage or sell their properties to cope with economic shocks, ultimately winding up landless tenants in the areas they once owned.

The proposals put forward by the Jejaring Rakyat Miskin Indonesia introduce a vital counter-narrative into the parliamentary discourse. By advocating for collective property regimes, the coalition draws inspiration from alternative models of community land trusts and cooperative housing initiatives seen in various developing and developed nations. These models prioritize long-term affordability, community resilience, and protection against gentrification over short-term individual liquidity.

Reactions and Next Steps in the Legislative Process

As the DPR’s Legislative Body prepares for subsequent rounds of discussions on the Agrarian Reform Bill, the testimony delivered by Guntoro Gugun Muhammad is expected to spark intense debate among lawmakers representing diverse political factions.

Proponents of free-market capitalism and individual property rights within the legislature are likely to push back against mandatory collective titling, arguing that individual certificates empower citizens with maximum autonomy and collateral value. Conversely, populists and representatives attuned to urban and rural grassroots constituencies may find merit in exploring hybrid models—particularly for urban slum upgrading and rural indigenous territories where communal land tenure has historical precedence.

Furthermore, the proposed National Agrarian Reform Agency (BRAN), once formally debated, will face the heavy burden of reconciling these competing philosophies. The ultimate structure, enforcement mechanisms, and administrative guidelines adopted in the final text of the RUU Pengaturan Reforma Agraria will have generational consequences for millions of Indonesians.

For the urban poor represented by the Jejaring Rakyat Miskin Indonesia, the stakes could not be higher. As cities continue to expand and living costs rise, the policy choices codified in the upcoming law will determine whether future generations of marginalized citizens are granted permanent security through solidarity and collective strength, or left vulnerable to the relentless pressures of the land market. The ball is now firmly in the court of the nation’s lawmakers to decide how to balance economic modernization with genuine social equity.