Agrarian Reform Bill Promoted as an Instrument to Correct Land Ownership Inequality

Discussion on the Agrarian Reform Regulation Bill

Previously reported, the discussion of the Agrarian Reform Regulation bill with the government on Friday (18/9/2026) was marked by debates over the scope of agrarian reform objects and compensation mechanisms.

Debate over the reform objects arose when the Panja revisited several articles that had previously been postponed.

Ahmad Iman Sukri, Chair of the Panja for the Agrarian Reform Regulation bill in the DPR RI, said the government initially rejected the inclusion of the phrase "other agrarian sources."

However, the government later agreed with the DPR's proposal.

"There were several articles we postponed because the government previously refused the phrase 'other agrarian sources.' Now the government agrees with the DPR's proposal," Ahmad said during a meeting at the Parliament Complex, Jakarta, on Friday.

The government, via Deputy Minister of State Secretariat Eko Suharyanto, then suggested that the article's wording be more general without detailing the types of agrarian reform objects.

However, Panja member Bob Hasan argued that the scope of agrarian matters is very broad and should not be limited only to land issues.

"Well, the ultimate object of agrarian reform is indeed land. Land and water, for example seas, fishermen and so forth, but basically there will be management rights, ownership rights, individual ownership rights. That's why 'other agrarian sources' should remain included as is," Bob said.

The Panja leadership then agreed with this perspective.

Debates also occurred when the Panja reviewed DIM 287 paragraph (6) regarding compensation for parties whose land is designated as agrarian reform objects.

In the DPR's proposal, individuals, legal entities, or business entities who control or own rights to land not involved in agrarian conflicts or disputes but whose land is designated as agrarian reform objects are entitled to fair and appropriate compensation under prevailing laws and regulations.

The government suggested revising the wording to use the term "legitimate rights holders and third parties acting in good faith."

Additionally, the government proposed changing "fair and appropriate" compensation to simply "compensation according to laws and regulations."

"Legitimate rights holders and good faith third parties receive legal protection if their rights are taken or surrendered for agrarian reform purposes and receive compensation according to laws and regulations," stated the government's proposal.