PALMOILMAGAZINE, JAKARTA – The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi) was once again gripped by tension on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, as deliberations continued for Case No. 147/PUU-XXII/2024. At the heart of the legal battle lies a highly sensitive issue: the fate of thousands of hectares of land located within designated forest zones—yet already registered under individuals and corporations.
Presiding over the session, Constitutional Court judges heard testimony from the government, represented by Dwi Januanto Nugroho, Director General of Forest Law Enforcement at the Ministry of Forestry. Dwi firmly argued that landowners whose certified properties were later declared forest areas are not automatically entitled to compensation.
“The forest zone designation came before these parties obtained land titles. Their claims for compensation, therefore, lack legal basis,” Dwi stated, as quoted by Palmoilmagazine.com on Saturday, May 10, 2025. His remarks underscore the government’s firm stance that land acquired through questionable legality will not be legitimized.
Dwi further emphasized that certificates such as Ownership Rights (SHM) or Cultivation Rights (HGU) cannot be universally considered valid if they contradict existing laws. He pointed to the positive impact of Articles 110A and 110B of Law No. 18/2013 on Forest Destruction Prevention, amended by the Job Creation Law. These provisions, he said, have boosted state revenues through Forest Resource Fees (PSDH), Reforestation Funds (DR), and administrative fines.
On the other side of the courtroom, the petitioners — PT Tara Bintang Nusa, the Makmur Jaya Labusel Village Cooperative, and individual landowner Memet S. Siregar — laid bare the substantial losses they claim to have suffered. The first petitioner, for instance, said that 41.6 hectares of their land now fall within forest boundaries, forcing them to comply with complex forestry-related obligations.
The Makmur Jaya Cooperative, representing 770 smallholders since the 1990s, warned that many of its members now face the risk of losing their certified land. “Those with more than five hectares of oil palm plantations are threatened with hefty fines or even land forfeiture to the state,” their legal counsel argued.
Memet S. Siregar, the third petitioner, offered a more complex case. He was once prosecuted for corruption after using an SHM-certified oil palm plantation—later identified as forest land—as collateral. He is now facing an administrative fine of Rp 35 billion and has lost ownership of his land.
Dwi cautioned that granting the petitioners’ request would disrupt the work of the National Palm Oil Task Force, which is currently handling legalization for oil palm plantations in forest areas. “There are 7,221 legal entities under review, and all of them could be affected,” he noted.
The petitioners are challenging Articles 110A(1) and 110B(1) of Law 18/2013 as amended by the Job Creation Law, arguing that these clauses violate the 1945 Constitution. They are urging the Court to exclude certified landowners from the current regulations.
This case highlights a legal tug-of-war between the state’s formal environmental commitments and the lived realities of communities and businesses claiming good-faith land ownership. The Constitutional Court’s verdict could reshape Indonesia’s forest and agrarian policy for years to come.
Can certified land titles be overruled by forest zoning regulations? All eyes are now on the Constitutional Court for the final answer. (P2)
