Legal Literacy- The Citraland case in North Sumatra (Sumut) has become a public spotlight after the North Sumatra High Prosecutor's Office (Kejati) revealed alleged misuse of state assets belonging to PT Perkebunan Nusantara I (PTPN I) Regional I. Based on the investigation, the total land area involved reached approximately 8,077 hectares. The land with Cultivation Rights (HGU) status is suspected of being transferred to Building Use Rights (HGB) to a private party, namely PT Nusa Dua Propertindo (NDP) and PT Deli Megapolitan Kawasan Residensial (DMKR). The land is planned to be used for the construction of the Citraland residential area in Helvetia, Sampali, and Tanjung Morawa. The problem arises because the process of changing the rights is suspected of not going through the legal mechanism that should have been. There were also indications of the involvement of officials from the National Land Agency (BPN) in issuing certificates that violated land administration.

20% Obligation Violated in PP No. 18 of 2021

In the context of the Citraland Sumut case, the main focus of the violation lies in the obligation to hand over land which is allegedly not fulfilled. This provision is clearly regulated inArticle 165 of Government Regulation (PP) Number 18 of 2021concerning Management Rights, Land Rights, Condominium Units, and Land Registration. Article 165 paragraph (1) states:
"In the event of a change in Cultivation Rights due to a revision of the RTR... the Cultivation Rights are adjusted to Building Use Rights or Use Rights with the obligation for the Cultivation Rights holder to hand over at least 20% to the state from the area of ​​the Cultivation Rights land that has been changed."
Paragraph (2) adds that if the HGU is a BUMN asset (such as PTPN I), the 20% handover is carried out in accordance with the laws and regulations regarding BUMN assets. The aim of this regulation is to ensure that the social function of the land is maintained (in accordance with Article 6 of the UUPA). In the Citraland case, this 20% obligation was allegedly not carried out, so the state lost its rights to land that should have been used for public purposes, such as green open spaces or social facilities.