REFORMULATION OF CONTROL AND LEGAL SECURITY OF LAND OWNED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Abstract

This research is motivated by a systemic norm conflict between the agrarian law regime, derived from Article 33 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, and the state finance law regime, derived from Articles 23 and 23C of the 1945 Constitution, concerning the regulation of the control and safeguarding of local government land assets. Consequently, local government lands are administratively recognized as assets yet remain legally vulnerable due to the absence of land certificates, thereby increasing their susceptibility to disputes and third-party claims. This study employs normative legal research, utilizing statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The findings indicate a paradigm shift in the concept of the State's Right of Control from public authority to administrative ownership. Furthermore, the legal standing of local governments exhibits ambivalence between public authority and administrative ownership, while land control practices are predominantly governed by de facto rather than de jure aspects. The study also identifies four distinct forms of norm conflicts: conflicts regarding legality principles, terminological conflicts, conflicts of legal consequences, and institutional conflicts. Additionally, the research reveals that regulatory disharmony between Government Regulation (PP) No. 28 of 2020 and PP No. 24 of 1997, coupled with weak institutional coordination between the Regional Financial and Asset Management Agency (BPKAD) and the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN), constitute the primary structural impediments to the certification of regional land assets. The study concludes that a legal reformulation is imperative, anchored in three foundational pillars: the fortification of agrarian legality utilizing land certificates as a fundamental prerequisite, the harmonization of cross-regime regulations, and the enhancement of institutional coordination.