Agrarian law application hits snag

Today is the anniversary of the Agrarian Law popularly known as UUPA. Thirty-four years later, law expert Dr. A.P. Parlindungan reminds us that many of today's land-related cases still reflect the poor understanding of the law, especially among government officials.

MEDAN, North Sumatra (JP): The recent national conference on national law revealed that awareness of the law among our government officials is still very low. This is a serious problem, as was discussed in this conference. For me, however, the question is whether the problem is viewed as ignorance of the law or a complete disregard of it.

With the issuance of the Presidential Decree No. 44, 1993, the hope was to have a more integrated approach to the implementation of the Agrarian Law (UUPA).

The law was supposed to serve as the source of all kinds of implementation directives as well as UUPA-based regulations, both in the form of necessary policies and in the usage of legal terms.

The fact is, we still have a lot of problems with legal terms. The Broad Outline of State Policy (GBHN) still uses the term lahan for a piece of land, while in our Zoning Law the words lahan and tanah are used interchangeably. Furthermore, the word bumi is used differently in both the UUPA and in the Property Tax regulations.

The same concept is referred to in the Zoning Law with the word darat. What the UUPA refers to as ruang angkasa ('air space') is referred to with the term ruang udara by our Zoning Law and with kedirgantaraan by the offices of our Air Force.

It is obvious that straightening out the usage of the terms will pose a horrendous challenge. Add to this challenge the development of a system where parts are dependent on one another. Only through the development of a new system can we avoid difficulties in improving our legal system.

In reality, every government body develops its own system for its own sector, regardless of what other departments or agencies are doing. Expecting the departments to cooperate in developing a national system is futile, to say the least. Though the legal system already seems optimal from the perspective of certain sectors, it is certainly not so when viewed from the angles of other agencies that also have the authority to regulate the same issues. It is clear that there is no interdependence between them. What we have is a chaotic situation, and this makes it very difficult to improve our legal system.

The difficulty created by the sectoral attitudes is demon strated by Law No. 7 of 1992 on banking, which allows the use of a traditional ownership certificate girik and petuk as an evidence of collateral for credit approval.

UUPA has tried to convert the right to property to one based on local customs, as regulated by the PMA investment law No. 2 of 1962. The Regulation on Conversion and Government Regulation No. 10 of 1961 have provided a number of directions on how the conversion of such rights over properties should be undertaken (See Article 25 of Government Regulation No. 10 of 1961). Law No. 4 of 1992 on Housing and Settlement allows for the shift of ownership collateral (pengikatan fidusia) by a notary over the building, and this is clearly not acceptable based on the Government Regulation No. 10 of 1961).

The lack of coordination between the laws and between the departments that regulate the same sectors is really dishearten ing, despite the fact that the President has repeatedly reminded us of the importance of coordination among related government bodies.

At many seminars, panel discussions, symposiums and work shops, the esteemed government officials leave the room immediately after giving their addresses. They show no interest in taking part in the discussions. The Master of Ceremony invariably would explain that, due to their hectic schedules, these officials have to leave right away. With this practice, how can we expect these officials to improve their knowledge.

There have been a few exceptions, though. Once during a seminar at the House of Representatives in which I participated, the chairman stayed in the room even though the organizing committee had excused him. He mentioned that he wanted to stay to learn more about the topics of discussion. I think this was an exception, though it should be the norm and our officials should not feel embarrassed to participate in discussions.

The addresses and directions given by officials are prepared by their staff. All they have to do is read the text, which does not necessarily improve their knowledge. Scientific discussions could help expand their horizons substantially. Such a discussion could also give them more accurate details on various situations in the community.

In many cases, the law has been written but the implementation directives still have to be worked out, requiring both knowledge and wisdom.

Just to illustrate, do we really think it is appropriate to give compensation as small as Rp 50 (30 US cent) per square meter to land owners whose land will be used for development purposes? What about Rp 5? It is unthinkable that people have been treated like that. Resettlement is actually the best solution for this problem, and in that manner these people have participated in development.

With the issuance of Presidential Decree No. 55 of 1993, as well as the Zoning Law, we are faced with a more complex under standing of various aspects of development in relation to land utilization.

If we were to be honest, let us ask ourselves these ques tions: How much do our government officials know about UUPA? How much do they know about Land Registration, about land reform, about land consolidation, about apartments, about housing and real estate, about profit sharing, about conversion of the right over property, about industrial estates, etc.? If our officials rely solely on the knowledge of their staff, and what the staff says is not necessarily correct, is it really surprising that we have witnessed so many unsettled disputes and extended conflicts? Are we now to say that these conflicts stem from the officials' unawareness of the regulations?

Finally, if the people are also ignorant of existing regulations, it means that we have failed in disseminating knowledge about the laws and the regulations. We have to re-evaluate our efforts. The government should play a key role in this matter, and, if necessary, with help from NGOs and universities. Together they should improve their efforts of disseminating knowledge of the laws and regulations.

The success of the family planning program in Indonesia constitutes an example of the success of a program with the help of all parties, including individuals, NGOs and religious organi zations throughout the country. There has been no significant resistance, although from the viewpoint of the Moslems there are things that can be tolerated and there are others that cannot be tolerated, such as abortion.

The writer is a former rector of North Sumatra University (USU).