PALMOILMAGAZINE, JAKARTA — The Center for Natural Resources Law Studies and Advocacy (PUSTAKA ALAM) has sharply criticized the Forest Area Enforcement Task Force (Satgas PKH) for what it describes as overreach and violations of legal certainty in its crackdown on oil palm plantations. The group’s main concern centers on land seizures targeting companies that already hold valid cultivation rights (Hak Guna Usaha or HGU), including firms that have reportedly prevailed in court all the way to the Supreme Court.
PUSTAKA ALAM Director Muhamad Zainal Arifin warned that such actions raise serious questions about the state’s adherence to the rule of law.
“This phenomenon raises a fundamental question: can an administrative decision by a task force nullify a ruling issued by the highest court?” Zainal said in a statement published by Palmoilmagazine.com on Tuesday (January 27, 2026).
Also Read: Indonesia Allocates 15.6 Million Kiloliters of Biodiesel for 2026, B40 Mandate Moves Forward
Court Rulings Must Take Precedence
Responding to land seizures involving plots said to have obtained final and binding legal status, Zainal cited the principle of Res Judicata Pro Veritate Habetur—that judicial decisions must be presumed correct and respected by all parties, including state authorities.
“Court rulings that have obtained permanent legal force are the highest form of law and must take precedence over administrative actions by Satgas PKH. The task force has no authority to nullify Supreme Court decisions. Forcing seizures on land that has been declared lawful by judges is a clear act of disobedience to the law,” Zainal asserted.
If such practices persist, he warned, legal certainty—the foundation of investment and land rights protection—will continue to erode.
Also Read: Deputy Trade Minister Highlights Traceability and Sustainability in Visit to PT SMART Marunda
Flawed Forest Area Mapping Under Scrutiny
PUSTAKA ALAM also pointed to what it sees as a fundamental error in the government’s and Satgas PKH’s approach: treating provincial-scale forest area decrees or forest gazettement progress decrees as final determinations of forest status.
Zainal said his organization holds data on partial forest area designation decrees that underwent boundary demarcation between 1987 and 2014. However, he claimed the task force has ignored these documents and continues to rely on preliminary designation decrees as the basis for land seizures.
He also invoked the doctrine of Rechtsverwerking, under which the state may be deemed to have relinquished its claim if it allows HGU utilization to continue for years without objection.
Also Read: Sustainable Palm Oil: A Fatamorgana?
“Moreover, forestry agencies were involved as members of the Panitia B committee when the HGUs were issued. As such, forest designations that emerged later cannot invalidate private rights that were established earlier,” Zainal added.
Estates Seized Despite Court Victories
PUSTAKA ALAM noted what it called an irony on the ground: seizures have continued even after companies reportedly won their cases. At least three plantations in North Sumatra, as well as one each in Central Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, and South Kalimantan, remain under seizure by Satgas PKH despite favorable court rulings, according to the group.
The organization also highlighted the erga omnes principle attached to final and binding rulings of the State Administrative Court (PTUN), which are universally binding and must be obeyed by all state apparatus, not just the litigating parties.
“If Satgas PKH acts against court rulings, then it is fair to ask whether Indonesia still upholds the rule of law or has shifted toward rule by power,” Zainal said.
Also Read: Agrinas Agrarian Disputes Escalate, PURAKA Calls on President Prabowo to Step In
He further referred to the Surya Darmadi case (Case No. 62/Pid.Sus-TPK/2022/PN Jkt Pst), which has often been cited by the Attorney General’s Office in handling corruption cases involving oil palm plantations in forest areas. In that ruling, judges reportedly excluded HGUs from the scope of corruption as long as they had not been revoked by the competent authority.
“In that decision, the court clearly stated that as long as an HGU has not been revoked by the authorized institution, it remains legally valid. This should serve as guidance for Satgas PKH,” Zainal said.
He also cited Article 64 paragraph (2) of Government Regulation No. 18 of 2021, which prohibits unilateral seizure of HGU land without prior annulment through the courts.
“Under this provision, for HGUs older than five years, cancellation of land rights must be carried out through judicial proceedings. As long as there is no court ruling revoking the HGU, it remains valid,” he explained.
Call for a Rights-Priority Approach
As a way forward, PUSTAKA ALAM urged the application of the principle Prior Tempore Potior Jure—the party that first acquires a right holds a stronger legal position.
“If an HGU was issued before a forest area was formally designated, that right must be protected and excluded (enclaved) from the forest map. Conversely, if a forest area was designated first with proper boundary demarcation records, the HGU may be reviewed, but any cancellation of HGUs older than five years must go through the courts,” Zainal said.
He closed by warning of the broader economic risks posed by what he described as arbitrary enforcement.
“These practices send a signal that Indonesia has become a high-risk destination for plantation investment. HGU certificates no longer appear to guarantee asset security, as they can be seized at any time due to policy shifts under different administrations,” Zainal concluded. (P2)
