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

JAKARTA, KOMPAS.com - The discussion of the draft bill on Agrarian Reform Regulation at the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI) is being pushed beyond mere land administration arrangements to also address the correction of inequitable land control.

Azis Subekti, a member of the Working Committee (Panja) on the Agrarian Reform Regulation bill from the Gerindra Party faction in the DPR RI Legislation Body, said that accelerating certification and modernizing land administration alone are insufficient to resolve agrarian issues.

He explained that even with improved land administration, the structure of land control will not necessarily change unless accompanied by policies aimed at correcting inequalities.

"The state cannot simply know who controls the land. The state must also be courageous enough to ask how much land is controlled, how it was acquired, whether it is being used productively, and who benefits from it," Azis said in a statement on Saturday (19/9/2026).

He stated that the Agrarian Reform Regulation bill needs to clearly regulate land ownership limits, evaluations of unused land, resolutions of agrarian conflicts, and cross-sectoral data integration.

Azis firmly asserted that agrarian reform must not be understood merely as redistribution or division of land to the public.

According to him, land grants must be accompanied by access to capital, technology, irrigation, seeds, assistance, business institutions, and markets.

"Land provided without capital, technology, mentoring, business institutions, and market access can be resold because recipients are unable to manage it," he warned.

Therefore, Azis urged that asset reform must go hand in hand with access reform. Farmers who receive land need to be encouraged to join economic institutions such as cooperatives.

In this way, farmers could hold stronger positions in buying production means, processing harvests, building storage systems, and distributing products.

Azis noted that this scheme could connect agrarian reform with agendas on food security, downstream processing, people's financing, and regional-based industrial development.

On the other hand, Azis emphasized that correcting land control structures must still be accompanied by legal certainty.

He said investment and business activities that legally obtain rights, fulfill obligations, and operate productively still deserve protection.

"Agrarian reform must be a firm middle path: it should not damage productivity, but must not tolerate injustice; it must not ignore legal certainty, nor allow the law to become a fortress for excessive control," Azis stated.

He hopes the Agrarian Reform Regulation bill can resolve overlapping authorities in land affairs, forestry, plantations, mining, spatial planning, and regional governance.

Febrianto Adi Saputro Working Committee meeting on the Agrarian Reform Regulation bill, Friday (19/9/2026) (Kompas.com/Febrianto Adi Saputro)

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.