MANOKWARI, Indonesia – As the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR) moves toward finalizing the draft legislation on agrarian reform, calls are intensifying for the bill to address the unique legal and social landscape of Papua. Senator Filep Wamafma, representing West Papua in the Regional Representative Council (DPD RI), has formally requested that the upcoming RUU Pengaturan Reforma Agraria (Draft Bill on Agrarian Reform Regulation) incorporate a dedicated chapter addressing the autonomous status of Papua. This request underscores the growing friction between national development agendas and the constitutional rights of indigenous communities.
Bridging National Policy and Local Autonomy
The push for a specialized chapter on Papua is not merely a regional request; it is a legal imperative rooted in Law Number 2 of 2021 concerning the Special Autonomy for Papua. This law mandates the Indonesian state to recognize, respect, protect, and empower the rights of indigenous communities, particularly their customary land rights (hak ulayat).
Senator Filep argues that without specific provisions, the national agrarian reform framework risks being applied in a "one-size-fits-all" manner that could inadvertently disenfranchise indigenous populations. "We must ensure the bill serves as a corrective instrument for structural land inequality without trampling on the sovereign rights of indigenous people," Filep stated in Manokwari. He emphasized that the absence of individual land certificates—a common feature of traditional land management—should not be interpreted as a lack of ownership. Under customary law, these lands are held collectively, and their status must be legally recognized within the new agrarian framework.
The Problem of TORA and Customary Land Status
A significant point of contention lies in the definition of the Tanah Objek Reforma Agraria (TORA), or Agrarian Reform Object Lands. Under current state mechanisms, TORA often focuses on redistributing state-owned land or land reclaimed from corporate concessions to landless farmers. However, there is a systemic fear among Papuan advocates that indigenous customary lands could be erroneously classified as TORA simply because they lack formal state certification.
Legal analysts suggest that if the draft bill does not clearly distinguish between state-managed redistribution land and ancestral domain, the state could effectively "expropriate" indigenous lands under the guise of reform. Filep advocates for a rigorous process of identification, verification, and mapping of customary territories before any land is designated for development or redistribution. He posits that consultation and the acquisition of local consent must be a prerequisite for any legal recognition of land status, preventing the further marginalization of traditional landholders.
Implementing FPIC as a Mandatory Standard
Central to Filep’s proposal is the institutionalization of the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) principle—known locally as Padiatapa—within the agrarian bill. This principle is intended to govern how the state and corporations engage with indigenous communities, especially concerning projects that carry significant environmental or social impacts.
While FPIC is a recognized standard in international human rights law, its application in Indonesia’s domestic regulatory environment has been inconsistent. By embedding FPIC into the RUU, the DPD hopes to provide a legal mechanism that forces developers to obtain genuine community approval before initiating Proyek Strategis Nasional (PSN) or other large-scale infrastructure projects. This would grant indigenous communities the right to reject proposals or demand structural modifications, shifting the balance of power from top-down state planning to a more collaborative approach.
Chronology and Legislative Context
The legislative journey toward an Agrarian Reform Law has been long and fraught with bureaucratic hurdles. Indonesia’s agrarian sector is defined by high levels of land tenure insecurity and frequent conflicts between communities, corporations, and the state.
- 2018–2020: The government intensifies the One Map Policy, an attempt to synchronize land data across various ministries to resolve overlapping permits and land claims.
- 2021: The passage of the second amendment to the Special Autonomy Law for Papua (Law 2/2021) reaffirms the state’s commitment to indigenous land rights.
- 2024–2025: The Baleg DPR (Legislative Body of the House of Representatives) accelerates the drafting of the RUU Pengaturan Reforma Agraria, aiming to integrate social justice into land management.
- February 2026: Discussions move to the plenary level, where stakeholders like the DPD begin lobbying for specific amendments, such as the inclusion of Papua-specific clauses.
Data-Driven Governance: The Case for a Unified Information System
One of the most practical solutions proposed by Filep is the creation of a national integrated information system for agrarian and indigenous territories. Currently, land data in Indonesia is fragmented across multiple institutions, including the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning (BPN), the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (KLHK), and local government offices. This fragmentation is the primary driver of overlapping concessions, where the same plot of land is simultaneously claimed by a mining firm, a plantation company, and an indigenous community.
An integrated system, as proposed, would map out:
- Customary Territory Boundaries: Clearly demarcated zones of indigenous jurisdiction.
- Individual and Communal Landholdings: Documenting traditional land use alongside formal titles.
- Active Concessions: Tracking HGU (Right to Cultivate) and HPL (Right of Management) licenses to ensure they do not infringe on pre-existing rights.
- Conflict Hotspots: A real-time dashboard showing ongoing land disputes, facilitating faster mediation.
Implications for National Stability and Economic Growth
The inclusion of indigenous protections in the agrarian bill is not just a human rights issue; it is a critical component of national stability. Persistent land conflicts in Papua have historically been a source of social unrest and civil dissatisfaction. By formalizing the protection of customary land, the state could potentially mitigate the causes of structural conflict.
Economically, providing legal certainty for land tenure can actually benefit investors. Currently, many large-scale investments in Papua face delays or litigation because the initial land acquisition process failed to account for customary claims. A transparent, legalized system of consent and verification would reduce the risk of future legal challenges, creating a more predictable environment for sustainable development.
Official Responses and Future Outlook
While the DPR’s Legislative Body has yet to issue a formal response to the specific request for a "Papua Chapter," members of the working committee have acknowledged the necessity of addressing regional specificities. The Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning has previously stated that the RUU is intended to be a "pro-people" instrument, though the implementation details remain subject to negotiation.
As the legislative process continues, civil society organizations and indigenous rights advocacy groups are expected to rally behind Senator Filep’s proposals. The challenge remains in balancing the federal-like aspirations of Papuan special autonomy with the centralist nature of national agrarian policies.
The final text of the bill will serve as a litmus test for the government’s commitment to the rights of indigenous peoples. If the government chooses to adopt the DPD’s suggestions, it would mark a significant shift toward a more inclusive agrarian policy in Indonesia. Conversely, ignoring these concerns could perpetuate the cycle of land-based conflicts that have hindered development in the region for decades.
Conclusion
The debate surrounding the RUU Pengaturan Reforma Agraria is emblematic of the broader struggle to harmonize Indonesia’s diverse cultural landscape with its modern economic ambitions. Senator Filep Wamafma’s intervention serves as a reminder that the land is not merely an economic asset but a foundational element of cultural identity for the people of Papua. As the bill heads toward further deliberation, the inclusion of robust, legally binding protections for customary rights will be the ultimate measure of the legislation’s success in achieving genuine agrarian justice.
