Legal Literacy - This article reviews and highlights how government policies deviate from the agrarian reform program as mandated by the Basic Agrarian Law.

Introduction

The spirit of agrarian reform contained in Law Number 5 of 1960 is the existence of land law that is oriented towards justice and social welfare. Agrarian reform itself is a program to restructure land ownership to realize justice in land control. Land control is oriented towards bringing social welfare in addition to individual welfare. The welfare of farmers as central actors for food security and sovereignty also receives more attention because the state is highly dependent on farmers in this sector. Without the presence of farmers, the state will face difficulties in dealing with domestic food problems which can have an impact on other aspects. Due to the urgency of land governance, the state as the holder of prerogative rights regulates this in government policy. Law Number 5 of 1960 or what is commonly called the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA) has mandated populist land management so that land management is not only enjoyed by a handful of parties. The mandate of the Law is derived in various regulations and policies below it so that it is hoped that the agrarian reform can run as it should. However, in its dynamics, the agrarian reform program often deviates from its objectives at the implementation stage. The government as the official authority often regulates things that deviate. Even in some cases, the government ignores and turns a blind eye to disputes involving agrarian reform. An example is the incident that befell farmers in Cianjur Regency, precisely in Rawabelut Village and Batulawang Village. This incident is one indication of the government's lack of seriousness towards the implementation of the agrarian reform program.

Discussion

The agrarian dispute case that occurred in a village in Cianjur Regency, namely Batulawang Village, is a dispute regarding the status of land that is managed into agricultural land. This agrarian dispute occurred between the residents of the village and the Land Bank and also involved PT Maskapai Perkebunan Moelya (MPM). The case that occurred in Batulawang began when in 1989 PT MPM promised ownership rights to the former land of PT MPM's Cultivation Rights (HGU) covering an area of 93 ha. Each resident received land of approximately 2,500 m2 and paid installments of Rp 20,500,000.00 for 5 (five) years. The land was initially used for chicken farming but failed in the first year so the residents returned to their profession as farmers. Towards the end of December 2022, the residents proposed that the 93 ha of land formerly owned by PT MPM's HGU become a priority location for agrarian reform or LPRA. The 93 ha of land was successfully registered as an LPRA object in order to accelerate agrarian reform. This is in line with the government's program regarding agrarian reform as mandated by Presidential Regulation Number 62 of 2023 concerning Acceleration of Agrarian Reform Implementation. With the acceleration of agrarian reform, the residents can immediately obtain ownership rights to the former HGU land covering an area of 93 ha. However, in reality, ownership of the 93 ha of land is hampered because it turns out that the land has been transferred to the Land Bank in 2023. In response to this, the Land Bank relocated the LPRA but the relocated land was very unsuitable for residents to live on and manage. The residents then demanded their ownership rights which were relocated with this unsuitable land to the Land Bank. The Land Bank, which has coordinated with the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN), has created an alternative scheme. The Land Bank through the Agrarian Reform Task Force (GTRA) has provided replacement land for 1927 residents. The residents are given usage rights for 10 years first. The usage rights are given temporarily to the residents and after 10 years the usage rights will become ownership rights. Meanwhile, residents' settlements will be maintained first while the relocation of residents' cultivated land is still in the discussion stage. The granting of temporary usage rights and then followed by a change to ownership rights, according to GTRA, is done to protect the farmers themselves. The redistribution program learns from experience that it is often tricked by farmers transferring their ownership rights to other parties. Therefore, the Ministry of ATR/BPN assesses that this method can provide protection for farmers. The Agrarian Reform Consortium or KPA criticized the agrarian policy implemented by the government through the Ministry of ATR/BPN. KPA assesses that there is no guarantee that after 10 years the usage rights will become ownership rights, full rights to farmers. In addition, the residents since the New Order (Orba) have built their own villages and own land as an indication of their existence. However, with this policy, they have to prove their existence again for the next 10 years and this is considered a form of injustice.

Case Analysis

The agrarian reform program as a program oriented towards restructuring or restructuring land ownership and control has several implementative programs. Among these implementative programs is land redistribution or land distribution. The land to be redistributed is land that exceeds the maximum ownership limit, land absentee or land that is located far from the owner's domicile, swaparaja land, and state land. Land for agrarian reform objects or TORA will be distributed to people in need so that land distribution occurs. This redistribution program is basically oriented towards the welfare of the community and individuals, especially farmers who play an important role in providing food. Land that is abandoned by its owners, or located far from the owner's domicile, or exceeds the limit is regulated in such a way by the state through the UUPA so that land utilization can be carried out optimally. The same is true for the relocation of land that is the object of dispute between the Batulawang Village community and the Land Bank. From the government's point of view through the Ministry of ATR/BPN, the land relocation was carried out to protect the community. However, in reality, the land relocation has its own irregularities. The replacement land provided by the government through the Land Bank is very unsuitable for living and managing so that the value of the relocation land is far below their original land. The residents cannot farm on the replacement land so the purpose of the relocation is empty. There is no point in replacing productive land with unproductive land. The Land Bank as a bank that is authorized to carry out land redistribution should provide decent replacement land. Agricultural land that is used by residents as agricultural land should not just be replaced with unsuitable land or even just replacement money. In addition, the former HGU land covering an area of 93 ha has been registered as an LPRA object. This land should not be transferred because the land redistribution program requires the distribution of land and its ownership rights to people in need. The essence of the redistribution program is that the community has ownership rights to land for agrarian reform objects or TORA, where previously they did not even have ownership rights to land. The redistribution program does not recognize the distribution of usage rights because usage rights are not as strong as ownership rights. Ownership rights themselves are full rights and the highest rights compared to other rights such as usage rights and HGU. With ownership rights, residents can manage their own land fully such as transferring the land or placing mortgage rights. Meanwhile, usage rights are only temporary and not as strong as ownership rights. Therefore, ownership rights cannot be transferred into usage rights even if only temporarily, namely 10 years. The granting of usage rights to people who basically have ownership rights is a form of deviation from the spirit of agrarian reform. People who initially had certainty of land ownership will encounter legal uncertainty because the status of their land changes to usage rights. The 10-year time limit is also very potential to be misused. As KPA said, there is no guarantee that after 10 years the usage rights will change to ownership rights. It is very possible that the Land Bank as the holder of ownership rights to the land will transfer the land again. If this happens, then the community's rights to the land will be lost because their status is only as holders of usage rights.

Conclusion

The mandate of the UUPA which aims to create a legal system that regulates land fairly should be implemented by the government in every policy. The government as the authorized authority should be committed to carrying out agrarian reform, especially after the acceleration of the agrarian reform program. Government policies through ministries, the Land Bank, and related institutions should be in agreement in carrying out this program because it will bring welfare and justice to the community.