Safeguarding Indigenous Rights: DPD RI Pressures for Special Autonomy Provisions in the Agrarian Reform Bill

MANOKWARI — Amid ongoing legislative efforts at the national level to overhaul land governance in Indonesia, the Regional Representative Council (DPD RI) has stepped forward to demand explicit protections for indigenous populations, particularly in Papua. Filep Wamafma, Chair of Committee III of the DPD RI, has formally urged that the deliberation of the upcoming Agrarian Reform Bill (RUU Pengaturan Reforma Agraria) explicitly accommodate indigenous customary rights (hak ulayat) and honor the unique legal and cultural landscape of the Papua region.

The call comes at a critical juncture as the Indonesian House of Representatives’ Legislative Body (Baleg DPR) recently concluded its initial drafting phases of the bill, sending ripples through various sectors, including agrarian activists, government ministries, and indigenous communities who view the legislation as a double-edged sword capable of either resolving systemic injustices or deepening historical land grievances.

Main Facts: The Core Demands of DPD RI

The core of Filep Wamafma’s advocacy centers on preventing the upcoming national land reform framework from imposing a uniform, one-size-fits-all approach across the archipelago. Speaking from Manokwari, West Papua, Filep emphasized that indigenous lands in Papua cannot be treated merely as vacant state assets waiting for distribution.

• Dedicated Chapter for Papua: The DPD RI is pushing for a specific, dedicated chapter within the Agrarian Reform Bill addressing agrarian reform exclusively within the framework of Papua’s Special Autonomy (Otonomi Khusus / Otsus).
• Distinction Between State Land and Customary Land: The bill must draw a definitive line between state redistribution objects and customary territories (wilayah adat) governed by ancestral origins and customary law (hak asal-usul).
• Prohibition of Automatic TORA Designation: The absence of individual land certificates must not be misconstrued as an absence of ownership. Indigenous lands should not be automatically classified as Land Objects for Agrarian Reform (TORA) just because they lack formal individual documentation.
• Mandatory FPIC Implementation: The implementation of the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (Padiatapa) principle must be made legally operational, especially for development projects and National Strategic Projects (PSN) impacting indigenous lands.
• Integrated National Agrarian Database: The establishment of a unified and integrated National Agrarian and Customary Territory Information System to eradicate overlapping land claims, conflicting licenses, and systemic administrative confusion.

Chronology of Legislative Developments and Advocacy

The path toward the Agrarian Reform Bill has been marked by intensive bureaucratic negotiations and parliamentary maneuvering, running parallel to escalating land disputes across the Indonesian archipelago.

• Early 2026 / Mid-Term Deliberations: The Baleg DPR formally wrapped up its initial formulation of the Agrarian Reform Bill, positioning it as a cornerstone legal instrument designed to tackle structural agrarian conflicts and widespread inequality in land control.
• Policy Shifts and Interventions: The urgency of the bill was further underlined when the Indonesian National Police (Polri) announced a temporary suspension of handling all agrarian conflict cases, signaling a national acknowledgment of the volatile nature of land disputes.
• Executive and Legislative Alignment: The Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning / National Land Agency (Kementerian ATR/BPN), through its Deputy Minister, expressed strong support, framing the bill as a vital instrument for social justice. Simultaneously, various lawmakers pushed to tether agrarian reform initiatives to broader national policies, such as the Nutritious Meal Program (MBG) and regional cooperative frameworks (KDKMP).
• The Papuan Intervention: Responding to the national legislative momentum, DPD RI Committee III Chair Filep Wamafma issued a formal demand on Friday in Manokwari. He insisted that the ongoing legislative process must pause and re-evaluate how it interacts with regions operating under special autonomy mandates.

Supporting Data and Legal Frameworks

To substantiate the DPD’s demands, Filep pointed directly to existing constitutional and statutory mandates that protect indigenous rights in Indonesia, contrasting them against the current vulnerabilities presented by generalized agrarian reform models.

The Special Autonomy Mandate

The primary legal anchor for the DPD’s position is Law Number 2 of 2021 concerning the Second Amendment to Law Number 21 of 2001 concerning Special Autonomy for the Papua Province. This statute places a binding legal obligation on the state to explicitly recognize, respect, protect, empower, and develop the rights of indigenous Papuans, encompassing both communal customary rights (hak ulayat) and individual rights belonging to members of indigenous law communities.

The Danger of Uniform TORA Classifications

Under standard agrarian reform mechanics, TORA (Tanah Objek Reforma Agraria) targets lands controlled by the state or released from forest areas to be redistributed to landless peasants or smallholders. However, applying this mechanism blindly to Papua threatens to disenfranchise communities whose land tenure systems are communal rather than individual.

According to Filep, mapping and verification must precede any state-led land allocation:

"The absence of individual certificates cannot be used as a basis to conclude that indigenous communities do not possess rights over those territories," Filep stated firmly.

He recommends a mandatory multi-step protocol before any permits, concessions, or administrative titles are issued:

1. Comprehensive identification and verification of land use.
2. Formal mapping of indigenous territories (wilayah adat).
3. Explicit legal establishment of rights.
4. Transparent public consultations.
5. Securing explicit, documented community consent.

Operationalizing FPIC (Padiatapa)

The concept of Padiatapa (Persetujuan Atas Dasar Informasi Awal Tanpa Paksaan)—the Indonesian equivalent of Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)—has often been treated as a bureaucratic formality rather than a binding right. The DPD insists that the Agrarian Reform Bill must grant indigenous communities the absolute legal right to evaluate, negotiate, or outright reject mega-projects, including National Strategic Projects (PSN), before any foundational groundwork is laid.

The Need for an Integrated Information System

One of the most persistent bottlenecks in Indonesian land administration is the chronic overlapping of licenses—where mining concessions, plantation permits (HGU), forest zones, and customary lands occupy the exact same geographic coordinates. Filep emphasized that the bill must mandate a National Agrarian and Customary Territory Information System. This database must house transparent, accessible records of:

• Registered indigenous law communities and their geographic borders.
• Communal customary rights and individual holdings.
• Customary forests (hutan adat).
• Commercial licenses, Business Use Rights (HGU), and Management Rights (HPL).
• State forest zones and mining operational areas.
• National Strategic Projects (PSN) footprints.
• Active structural agrarian conflicts.

Official Responses and Stakeholder Perspectives

The debate surrounding the Agrarian Reform Bill has drawn commentary from various branches of the government, illustrating a complex web of competing priorities between national development goals and human rights protections.

The Legislative Perspective (DPR)

The House of Representatives (DPR), through its Legislative Body (Baleg), has championed the bill as an overdue systemic fix. Lawmakers argue that decades of uneven land distribution have paralyzed rural economies and generated endless localized conflicts between corporations and local populations. Proponents within the legislature argue that the bill will streamline land administration and provide legal certainty. However, civil society groups and regional representatives like Filep Wamafma have cautioned that speed should not come at the expense of regional nuances.

The Executive Perspective (Ministry of ATR/BPN)

The Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning has consistently maintained that the legislation is engineered to function as an instrument of social justice. Ministry officials have expressed willingness to coordinate with regional stakeholders, though finalizing the precise mechanics of how national economic targets—such as agricultural expansion and infrastructure development—will harmonize with localized customary protections remains an ongoing bureaucratic challenge.

Law Enforcement and Conflict Management

The recent controversial decision by the Indonesian National Police (Polri) to temporarily suspend the handling of ongoing agrarian conflict cases points to an institutional recognition that heavy-handed law enforcement is failing to resolve deep-seated structural disputes. Observers note that pushing forward with a sweeping national land reform bill without resolving overlapping claims risks exacerbating tensions on the ground, making the DPD’s call for preventative verification and data integration all the more urgent.

Implications: What is at Stake for Papua and Indonesia?

The inclusion or exclusion of Papua-specific protections in the final Agrarian Reform Bill carries profound, long-term implications for Indonesia’s socio-political stability and economic trajectory.

1. Prevention of Escalating Structural Conflicts

Papua has long been a hotspot for land-related friction, where large-scale resource extraction, palm oil plantations, and infrastructure initiatives frequently collide with traditional hunting grounds, sacred sites, and ancestral domains. By embedding a dedicated chapter and strictly enforcing FPIC, the state can preemptively neutralize grievances that often morph into broader social and political unrest.

2. Legal Harmony vs. Administrative Centralization

Failure to differentiate between standard state-controlled land and ancestral customary domains risks institutionalizing a form of legal land-grabbing under the banner of "reform." If TORA targets are aggressively pursued without prior customary mapping, thousands of indigenous families could find their traditional territories legally reclassified out from under them.

3. Strengthening Special Autonomy

For decades, critics of Indonesia’s regional autonomy policies have argued that Jakarta-centric regulations routinely override local autonomy laws. Successfully integrating a dedicated chapter for Papua within a national agrarian statute would represent a legal stress-test for the Special Autonomy framework, proving whether national legislation can genuinely defer to regional constitutional particularities.

4. A Template for National Land Justice

Beyond Papua, the debates catalyzed by Filep Wamafma and Committee III set a critical precedent for indigenous communities across the entire Indonesian archipelago—from the customary forests of Kalimantan and Sumatra to the traditional domains of Maluku and Sulawesi. How the state handles the tension between modern statutory law and ancestral indigenous rights in this bill will define the character of Indonesian social justice for generations to come.

As deliberations continue, all eyes remain fixed on the national legislature to see whether lawmakers will heed regional warnings or press forward with a streamlined framework that risks leaving indigenous guardians behind.