Urban Poor Consortium Urges Establishment of Special Agrarian Court to Resolve Land Disputes and Counters National Agrarian Reform Agency Proposal

Jakarta, CNN Indonesia — The Legislative Body (Baleg) of the House of Representatives (DPR) convened a formal hearing on Thursday, September 10, bringing together various civil society organizations and community groups to deliberate on the drafting of the Agrarian Reform Bill. Among the participating entities was the Urban Poor Consortium (UPC), a prominent grassroots advocacy organization based in Jakarta, which used the platform to present critical recommendations regarding the structural mechanisms needed to resolve protracted land conflicts across the archipelago.

During the parliamentary session held at the legislative complex, representatives from the UPC voiced deep-seated concerns regarding the historical disadvantages faced by marginalized communities within the conventional judicial system. The core of their argument centered on the creation of a specialized, independent judicial body dedicated strictly to agrarian disputes—a proposal aimed at addressing systemic inequalities that consistently favor corporate entities and state institutions over ordinary citizens.

The push for legislative intervention highlights the ongoing structural tensions within Indonesia’s land tenure system, where communal rights, indigenous claims, and urban informal settlements frequently clash with large-scale commercial developments and state infrastructure projects. As the DPR continues to shape the contours of the Agrarian Reform Bill, civil society inputs such as those provided by the UPC have injected renewed urgency into debates surrounding legal protection, access to justice, and the institutional architecture required to achieve equitable land distribution.

The Structural Deficit in Conventional Courts

Addressing the legislative body, UPC Advocacy Coordinator Guntoro Gugun Muhammad articulated the frustrations experienced by ordinary citizens when attempting to defend their land rights through existing judicial channels. According to Guntoro, the current legal framework is overwhelmingly rigid and favors formal documentary proof, a standard that severely disadvantages impoverished communities who have occupied or farmed land for generations without possessing formal state-issued certificates.

"Consequently, we need an agrarian court. However, in our view, based on historical cases, our current judicial system is overwhelmingly positive-law-oriented. Therefore, the people who lack documentary evidence will inevitably lose," Guntoro stated during the hearing.

This critique underscores a foundational flaw in Indonesia’s civil and administrative litigation processes. In standard property disputes, courts generally require stringent documentary evidence, such as certificates of ownership (Sertifikat Hak Milik or SHM) or historical land grants. However, millions of Indonesians—particularly urban poor communities, traditional fishermen, and indigenous populations—rely on customary rights, historical occupation, or informal administrative letters that hold little legal weight in formal courtrooms. By demanding absolute documentary proof without accounting for historical structural exclusions, the conventional legal system effectively functions as a mechanism that legalizes the dispossession of vulnerable populations.

Rejection of Dual Authority for the Proposed National Agrarian Reform Agency

A central point of contention raised by the UPC during the deliberations involved the proposed establishment of the National Agrarian Reform Agency (Badan Reformasi Agraria Nasional – BRAN). Earlier drafts of the Agrarian Reform Bill suggested vesting BRAN with extensive powers, potentially combining administrative, legislative, and judicial authorities to expedite the resolution of agrarian conflicts.

The UPC strongly objected to this model, warning against the concentration of judicial and administrative power within a single executive or quasi-governmental body. Guntoro argued that granting BRAN the dual authority to both adjudicate and execute conflict resolutions would undermine the separation of powers and lack the necessary judicial impartiality required to settle deeply contested land claims.

"We do not want BRAN to possess dual authorities, acting as both a legislative and a judicial body in resolving agrarian reform cases," Guntoro explained.

Instead of empowering BRAN to issue binding legal verdicts, the UPC proposed a bifurcated model that clearly delineates administrative advocacy from judicial adjudication. Under the consortium’s framework, BRAN would serve as an institutional legal representative for marginalized communities, while the final power of determination and legal ruling would remain exclusively with the proposed special agrarian court.

Bridging the Power Asymmetry Through Institutional Legal Standing

To address the profound power imbalance between individual citizens and powerful corporate conglomerates or state apparatuses, the UPC emphasized the necessity of structural mediation. Guntoro pointed out that ordinary citizens attempting to defend their homes and livelihoods are routinely outmatched when forced to litigate directly against well-resourced opponents.

"Because the moment citizens face the state directly, or face corporations directly, the playing field is entirely uneven, Sir," Guntoro asserted, addressing members of the parliamentary committee. "Therefore, we propose here that BRAN does not make the final decision, but BRAN is granted the legal standing to act as the petitioner submitting cases to the agrarian court."

Under this proposed framework, marginalized communities would not be required to navigate the complexities and financial burdens of filing lawsuits independently. Instead, BRAN would utilize its institutional capacity and legal standing to bring verified land dispute cases forward on behalf of the public. This mechanism aims to institutionalize state support for dispossessed communities, transforming the government from a distant or adversarial entity into a facilitator of substantive justice.

Background and Context of Agrarian Reform in Indonesia

The debate surrounding the Agrarian Reform Bill takes place against a complex historical backdrop of land inequality in Indonesia. Agrarian reform has long been touted as a cornerstone policy to address the stark concentration of land ownership in the hands of a small percentage of corporations and conglomerates, a legacy that traces back to colonial land policies and accelerated industrial expansion during the late 20th century.

Under the administration of President Joko Widodo, agrarian reform was designated as a national strategic program, with targets set to legalize millions of hectares of land and redistribute ownership to smallholder farmers and indigenous communities. However, civil society organizations have consistently pointed out that government efforts have heavily leaned toward land titling and legalization in areas with minimal conflict, while complex, structural agrarian disputes involving large-scale plantations, mining concessions, and urban gentrification remain largely unresolved.

According to data compiled by the Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA), thousands of agrarian conflicts erupt across Indonesia annually, affecting hundreds of thousands of households. These conflicts frequently involve violent evictions, criminalization of local farmers, and protracted legal battles that span decades. The absence of a dedicated judicial mechanism specialized in agrarian matters has long been identified by legal experts as a major bottleneck in achieving genuine agrarian justice.

Implications of a Specialized Agrarian Court

The introduction of a specialized agrarian court, as advocated by the UPC and various legal scholars, carries profound implications for the Indonesian legal and economic landscape. Proponents argue that such a court would possess the necessary expertise to untangle complex historical land claims, customary law rights (hak ulayat), and administrative overlaps that general civil judges are often ill-equipped to handle.

Furthermore, a specialized court could potentially streamline the resolution process, reducing the immense backlog of land cases currently clogging the general district courts. By incorporating judges trained specifically in agrarian law, environmental jurisprudence, and human rights standards, the judicial process could transition from a rigid application of positive law toward a more progressive framework that recognizes historical occupation and social justice principles.

However, critics and institutional realists have raised practical concerns regarding the establishment of new judicial bodies. Establishing a nationwide network of agrarian courts would require substantial budgetary allocations, comprehensive judicial training, and careful jurisdictional delineation to avoid conflicts with existing administrative, civil, and religious courts. Moreover, defining the precise parameters of "legal standing" for agencies like BRAN without creating bureaucratic red tape remains a delicate legislative challenge.

Broader Societal and Economic Impacts

The resolution of land disputes is not merely a legal or humanitarian issue; it is intrinsically linked to Indonesia’s broader economic stability, food security, and environmental sustainability. Unresolved agrarian conflicts create a climate of legal uncertainty that deters sustainable investment, frequently leads to human rights violations, and exacerbates rural-urban migration as dispossessed communities lose their primary sources of livelihood.

In urban settings, such as Jakarta, where the UPC actively operates, land tenure insecurity manifests as forced evictions of informal settlements, often executed to make way for commercial developments, flood mitigation projects, or urban renewal initiatives. Urban poor communities face continuous displacement without adequate compensation or relocation support, trapping generations in cycles of poverty.

By embedding structural protections within the Agrarian Reform Bill—such as the creation of an agrarian court and institutional legal standing for advocacy bodies—legislators have a rare opportunity to bridge the gap between national economic development and social equity. The ongoing deliberations in the House of Representatives will serve as a critical testing ground for the state’s commitment to protecting the rights of its most vulnerable citizens against systemic displacement.

As the Legislative Body of the DPR continues its series of consultations with civil society organizations, academics, and government stakeholders, the proposals put forth by the UPC will be subject to rigorous debate. Whether these recommendations will be fully integrated into the final text of the Agrarian Reform Bill remains to be seen, but the discourse has undeniably sharpened the focus on the urgent need for structural judicial reform in Indonesia’s land management sector.