Safeguarding Customary Rights: The Push for a Special Chapter on Papua in the Agrarian Reform Bill

MANOKWARI – The legislative pursuit of justice in land ownership and management in Indonesia has reached a critical juncture with the drafting of the Agrarian Reform Bill. As the House of Representatives (DPR) moves to finalize the framework, Filep Wamafma, Chairman of Committee III of the Regional Representative Council (DPD RI), has issued a clarion call for the inclusion of specific provisions dedicated to the unique constitutional status of Papua.

Wamafma argues that without a dedicated chapter addressing the nuances of Papuan customary law and the Special Autonomy mandate, the national agrarian reform agenda risks repeating historical patterns of marginalization and structural conflict.

1. Main Facts: Bridging National Reform with Indigenous Rights

At the heart of the debate is the tension between national land redistribution goals and the ancestral, communal land rights held by indigenous communities in Papua. The proposed Agrarian Reform Bill, currently being deliberated at the national level, aims to correct decades of structural inequality in land ownership. However, for Papua, the "one-size-fits-all" approach is viewed as legally and culturally insufficient.

Filep Wamafma posits that the Bill must function as an instrument of restorative justice. He emphasizes that the recognition of land rights in Papua cannot be predicated solely on the possession of formal, individual land titles. Under customary systems, land is often communal, held collectively through generations of oral history and traditional stewardship. By mandating a "Special Chapter for Papua," Wamafma believes the government can ensure that national reforms do not accidentally disenfranchise those whose land ownership pre-dates the modern Indonesian state.

2. Chronological Context: From Autonomy to Reform

The quest for land rights in Papua is inextricably linked to the broader timeline of the region’s autonomy.

2001: The enactment of Law No. 21 of 2001 on Special Autonomy for the Papua Province marked the initial formal attempt to recognize indigenous rights at a constitutional level.
2021: The revision of the Special Autonomy Law (Law No. 2 of 2021) reinforced the state’s mandate to protect, respect, and empower indigenous Papuan communities, specifically regarding customary rights (hak ulayat).
2024-2025: The DPR’s Legislative Body (Baleg) initiated the drafting of the RUU Pengaturan Reforma Agraria (Agrarian Reform Bill). This bill seeks to streamline land distribution and resolve systemic conflicts that have plagued the nation for decades.
February 2026: As the draft nears completion, discussions have shifted toward the practical application of the bill. Concerns raised by DPD RI representatives underscore the potential for conflict if the bill’s implementation fails to account for regional legal frameworks already in place in Papua.

3. Supporting Data and Legal Justification

The complexity of the issue lies in the definition of "Land Objects for Agrarian Reform" (TORA). Under standard national guidelines, land that is not formally certified or is considered "state-owned" is often designated as TORA for redistribution. Wamafma warns that this administrative logic is dangerous when applied to Papua.

The Myth of "Empty Land"

A significant portion of Papua’s territory is governed by customary law. The absence of an individual certificate is frequently misinterpreted by the state as an absence of ownership. Wamafma argues that this is a fundamental error:

Customary Tenure: Indigenous communities hold legitimate, ancestral rights to vast territories, even if those rights are not captured in the National Land Agency’s (BPN) digitized records.
Data Discrepancy: The lack of an integrated national system leads to the "double-counting" of land—where the state classifies an area as a prospective industrial zone while local communities identify the same area as sacred or ancestral forest.

Wamafma proposes an integrated "National Agrarian and Customary Territory Information System." This database would act as a digital registry, layering state concessions, mining permits, and Proyek Strategis Nasional (PSN) projects over verified customary maps. By doing so, the government can identify potential overlaps before they trigger physical or legal conflicts.

4. Official Responses and Advocacy for FPIC

The demand for the inclusion of the Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC)—known in Indonesia as Padiatapa—has become a cornerstone of Wamafma’s advocacy.

Implementing FPIC as a Mandatory Protocol

Wamafma insists that the Agrarian Reform Bill must explicitly require FPIC for any project—especially National Strategic Projects (PSN)—that impacts indigenous land. This is not merely a request for consultation, but a legal requirement for:

Freedom from Coercion: Decisions must be made without political or economic intimidation.
Prior Knowledge: Communities must be informed of the risks, benefits, and environmental impacts long before a permit is issued.
Right to Refuse: The reform must grant indigenous communities the legal space to say "no" to projects that threaten their cultural or ecological survival.

The Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning (ATR/BPN) has publicly acknowledged the bill’s role as an "instrument of social justice." However, activists and representatives from the DPD argue that this rhetoric must be codified into the bill’s text to prevent it from becoming a tool for bureaucratic overreach.

5. Implications: The Path Toward Sustainable Resolution

The implications of incorporating or ignoring these provisions are profound. If the government fails to include a specific, protective chapter for Papua, the agrarian reform process could inadvertently trigger a surge in land-related litigation and social unrest.

Preventing Structural Conflict

By explicitly requiring the identification, verification, and mapping of customary lands prior to any issuance of permits or concessions, the government can preemptively resolve the root causes of conflict. This approach transitions the state from an adversary to a facilitator of land rights.

Strengthening National Unity through Recognition

Recognizing the legitimacy of customary law does not weaken the state; it strengthens the social contract. By acknowledging that Papuan indigenous rights are a distinct, protected category, the Indonesian state demonstrates a commitment to the "Unity in Diversity" (Bhinneka Tunggal Ika) principle in a practical, economic, and legal context.

Long-term Economic Stability

For investors and developers, legal clarity is paramount. A system that accounts for customary rights reduces the risk of long-term litigation, project stoppages, and reputation damage. When developers engage with a clear legal framework that respects indigenous protocols, the likelihood of sustainable cooperation increases significantly.

Conclusion: A Turning Point for Indonesian Agrarian Law

As the deliberation of the Agrarian Reform Bill enters its final stages, the recommendations brought forward by Filep Wamafma serve as a litmus test for the government’s commitment to justice. The call to include a dedicated chapter for Papua is not a request for a separate legal system, but a request for the national law to be sensitive to the diverse realities of the archipelago.

If the DPR and the government succeed in integrating these indigenous protections, the bill could serve as a model for how a modern, democratic nation can harmonize large-scale economic development with the preservation of ancient cultural heritage. If ignored, the country risks further alienating its indigenous populations and perpetuating the cycle of land disputes that have hindered progress for decades.

The message from Manokwari is clear: Agrarian reform must be more than just the redistribution of land—it must be the recognition of the people who have served as the stewards of that land for centuries. The drafting of this Bill is the final chance to ensure that the spirit of the Special Autonomy for Papua is not lost in the fine print of national regulation.