Righting property rights

Righting property rights

We doubt most of the demonstrators who took to the streets to
protest the presidential regulation on the acquisition of land
for infrastructure projects actually read the regulation. Most of
the protesters were able to cite just one article from the
regulation, and this article led them to accuse President Susilo
Bambang Yudhoyono of enacting the regulation in bad faith.

The single article in question is indeed rather draconian in
that it authorizes the president, based on a recommendation from
the National Land Agency, to revoke the property ownership rights
of anyone who refuses to sell their land for a basic
infrastructure project that is in the public's interest.

However, after carefully reading all 24 articles in the
presidential regulation and scrutinizing the step-by step process
of land acquisition as required by the ruling, it is clear that
this one "draconian article" is a last resort that can be taken
only after all other avenues and consultations with landowners
have been exhausted.

There is nothing new or illegal in the president's authority
to revoke the ownership rights of landowners, which is laid down
in Law No. 20/1961. The article in the presidential regulation
should in fact be welcomed because it makes the procedure for
revoking property ownership rights much more transparent.

Presidential Regulation No. 36/2005, which was issued early in
May, is based on three main principles: transparency in the
process of development for the public interest, honoring
property rights and the fair treatment of landowners who
surrender their land for basic infrastructure development. This
is a good balancing act between honoring property rights and
facilitating development.

Transparency is reflected in the articles that stipulate the
location of all basic infrastructure projects will be based on
spatial plans drawn up by local administrations.

Landowners will be consulted directly regarding the
acquisition of their land, and landowners are entitled to appeal
to the governor, regent or mayor if an agreement on compensation
cannot be reached after 90 days of negotiations. These articles
will close the loopholes that in the past have been exploited by
land speculators, especially as the regulation also makes it
virtually impossible to purchase land already designated for
basic infrastructure.

The principle of fairness is established in the provision that
the amount of compensation for landowners shall be based
minimally on the current taxable value of their land and
building/house.

The great concern expressed by many parties, including the
National Commission on Human Rights, is that the government could
arbitrarily define what is in the public's interest. However,
this fear seems a little excessive. The regulation takes pains to
prevent any misinterpretation by clearly defining 21 categories
of infrastructure that are in the public's interest, ranging from
toll roads, dams, ports and religious facilities, to sports
venues, parks, power stations and public health centers.

We do not agree with the right commission's view that
infrastructure such as toll roads, parks and airports cannot be
classified as facilities that are in the public's interest
because they only benefit those people who have direct access to
them. This is like saying the rights commission, which is funded
by taxpayers, does not serve the interests of the public because
it only helps those whose human rights have been violated.

Not all of the infrastructure defined in the regulation
directly benefits all of the people all of the time, but
empirical evidence has shown that good infrastructure such as
roads, dams, seaports, airports and power stations is a key
driver of economic growth -- hence generating jobs for more
people -- and improves access to public services and facilities
for the poor.

But land acquisition has become a major obstacle to the
construction of infrastructure, and poor infrastructure has
impaired the competitiveness of our economy and hindered people's
access to public services such as health care, education and
markets, thereby hampering poverty alleviation.

It was a wise decision by the limited Cabinet meeting chaired
by Vice President Jusuf Kalla on Tuesday to push ahead with
implementing the presidential regulation. The challenge is for
the government to prove to the critics that land acquisition for
infrastructure projects is based on fixed spatial plans, and that
the property rights of landowners will be protected. An effective
information campaign to educate people about the regulation would
help it gain public support.

We believe the inordinate concern over the regulation simply
reflects the distrust some people have for the President's
economic team and the trauma of the Soeharto era, when the
government often trampled on property rights in the name of
development.

Given the vital role of basic infrastructure, we must give the
Susilo administration the benefit of the doubt.