PALMOILMAGAZINE, JAKARTA — The decision of the West Java Governor to issue a Circular Letter (Surat Edaran/SE) on December 29, 2025, banning the planting of oil palm has ignited serious debate. The issue goes beyond the familiar pro-and-con arguments surrounding palm oil as a commodity, touching instead on the appropriateness of the legal instrument used and its implications for the distribution of authority between the central and regional governments.
Substantively, the circular prohibits new oil palm planting across West Java and instructs the replacement of palm oil with other crops on land already planted. This is where the legal question becomes clear: does a circular letter carry sufficient legal force to restrict—let alone eliminate—business rights that are explicitly protected under higher-level laws and regulations?
Law No. 39 of 2014 on Plantations, as amended by the Job Creation Law, affirms the authority of regional governments in granting business permits. However, that authority is not absolute. It must be exercised in accordance with norms, standards, procedures, and criteria set by the central government. In other words, strategic policy direction remains firmly within the national framework.
Also Read:
From the perspective of Indonesia’s legal hierarchy, the status of a circular letter is critical. Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Formation of Laws and Regulations does not recognize circular letters as part of the formal hierarchy of legislation. What is acknowledged are “regulations,” not internal administrative instructions. Even Article 8, which allows for recognition of regulations outside the formal hierarchy, requires a clear legal basis through attribution or delegation of authority.
In essence, a circular letter is an administrative product. Its function is internal: clarifying procedures or providing implementation guidance. It is not intended to serve as a normative, regulatory instrument (regeling). When a circular instead imposes a general prohibition and orders policy synchronization down to the district and municipal levels, its internal administrative role shifts into de facto regulation with broad external impact. This is where the core legal problem lies.
The issue becomes more pronounced when the circular instructs that the ban be incorporated into regional development planning documents. Such a move suggests that the circular has exceeded its normative capacity, potentially overriding licensing policies that remain legally permissible under higher-level laws and regulations.
Also Read: From Soil Health to Higher Yields: Regenerative Agriculture and the Future of Smallholder Oil Palm
Ultimately, caution is essential. A circular letter may function as guidance, but it does not possess the legal authority to amend—let alone nullify—norms established by superior legislation. If a circular contradicts the authority or policy direction of the central government, its legal validity must be questioned. In a state governed by the rule of law, policy—no matter how well intentioned—must rest on a proper legal instrument. Otherwise, it is not only vulnerable to legal challenge, but also risks undermining legal certainty itself. (*)
By: Prof. Dr. Ermanto Fahamsyah, S.H., M.H.
Professor of Economic Law, University of Jember
Disclaimer: This article reflects the personal views of the author and is entirely his responsibility.
