The Balik Sepaku indigenous community challenges the IKN Law.\n\u201cNational interests\u201d cannot be used to justify ignoring the rights of\nindigenous peoples.<\/p>\n
THE Balik Sepaku indigenous community\u2019s lawsuit against the\nConstitutional Court deserves support. Together with the Indigenous\nPeoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), they are challenging Law\nNo.\u00a03\/2022 on the State Capital (IKN), which has yet to provide adequate\nguarantees for indigenous peoples\u2019 rights.<\/p>\n
The judicial review petition, filed on August 4, 2026, challenges\nArticle 21 of the IKN Law. The article states that land administration\nand spatial planning in IKN must \u201ctake into account and provide\nprotection for the individual or communal rights of indigenous peoples.\u201d\nThe petitioners argue that the provision does not provide sufficient\nguarantees for meaningful participation, particularly when development\ndirectly affects the land, territory, and resources that constitute\ntheir living space.<\/p>\n
The issue is not merely a matter of wording. According to AMAN, IKN\ndevelopment has narrowed customary territories, restricted access to\ncultural sites, and caused flooding and clean water shortages. Projects\ncarried out in the name of the national interest have instead put\ncommunities that have long lived in the area at risk of losing their\nliving space.<\/p>\n
The IKN case points to a broader problem: in development projects,\nindigenous peoples are often forced to bear the consequences of\ndecisions affecting their territories. Yet the Constitution provides a\nclear basis for their protection. Article 28I, paragraph 3, of the 1945\nConstitution states that cultural identities and the rights of\ntraditional communities shall be respected.<\/p>\n
Indigenous peoples should be involved in every policy-making process\nthat could alter their land, territories, environment, and resources.\nMeaningful participation must be opened from the earliest stages of\npolicy formulation. The principle of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent\n(FPIC) is relevant in this context. It emphasizes that indigenous\npeoples\u2019 consent must be given freely, without coercion, based on\nadequate information, and before projects affecting their land and\nterritories are carried out.<\/p>\n
The problem is that recognition of indigenous peoples\u2019 rights remains\nfar from complete. The government has indeed increased the number of\ncustomary forests formally recognized. As of April 2026, the Ministry of\nForestry said it had designated 174 customary forests covering about\n368,877 hectares and was targeting 1.4 million hectares by 2029. This\nprogress is worth noting. But the target also demonstrates how much work\nthe state still has to do to provide legal certainty to indigenous\npeoples.<\/p>\n
The contrast is evident in the scale of certainty granted to various\nbusiness activities. Concessions for the utilization of timber from\nnatural forests covered about 19 million hectares in 2022. Mining\nbusiness permit areas for minerals and coal covered about 9.11 million\nhectares in 2024. These figures demonstrate the stark disparity in the\nscale of certainty granted to business activities compared with the\nrecognition of indigenous territories.<\/p>\n
The government and the House of Representatives should not wait for\nthe Constitutional Court\u2019s ruling to amend the flawed IKN Law and\nrestore the customary rights of the Balik Sepaku people. No development\nproject, including one carried out in the name of the national interest,\nshould force indigenous peoples to lose their living space.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/ikn-must-not-marginalize-indigenous-people-1787982627", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }