| Abstract
|
:
|
This research examines conflicts between the government and customary law communities in Indonesia over land rights which have existed for one and a half century since the colonization era. It focuses on several issues. The first is how the existing provisions set forth about customary law communities and their indigenous property rights. The second is the requirements for the existence of customary law communities and indigenous property rights. The third is the procedure for the determination of the existence of customary law communities and indigenous property rights, while the last is the institution authorized to resolve disputes. As the basis of the discussion, literature review is conducted on property rights, customary law and on the state's role in establishing a clear and secure property rights. In Indonesia, information is obtained through surveys and interviews with Baduy and Lampung customary law communities, government agencies, politicians, forestry companies, non-government organizations, police and military officers. There are several main findings. First, the existing laws on land have not clearly set forth about customary law communities and the existence of indigenous property rights. In fact, the existing provisions are very complicated and do not conform to the values applicable in the communities. Second, there is no shared vision on customary law communities and indigenous property rights. Third, there are overlap claims between the government and communities over land rights. Fourth, in principal, there is unbroken chain between colonial's policies and the Indonesian government's policy on customary law communities and indigenous property rights. Last, the existing judicial system and rule of evidence are considered incapable to resolve the existing land disputes. This research recommends the government to at least undertake three important actions. First, it is necessary to have clear regulations on customary law community and indigenous property rights. Second, it is necessary to establish a trustable independent institution to resolve land disputes. And third, to have anthropologies and other unofficial written evidence as part of rule of evidence in land law disputes. In the process, the experience of Malaysia and Australia in dealing with native title serves as a priceless lesson to resolve disputes.
|