 |
Why Is Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35/PUU-X/2012 Often Ignored? Photo credit: Kalfin.
he Dayak Research Center (DRC) - SEKADAU : SELAMAT DATANG DI WILAYAH HAK KELOLA HUTAN ADAT DESA KIYU PUTUSAN MK/35/PUU-X/2012 "INI HUTAN ADAT KAMI, BUKAN HUTAN NEGARA"
A harsh warning in Indonesian translates into American English as follows:
WELCOME TO THE CUSTOMARY FOREST MANAGEMENT AREA OF KIYU VILLAGE
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT RULING NO. 35/PUU-X/2012
"THIS IS OUR CUSTOMARY FOREST, NOT STATE-OWNED LAND"
Read Preserving Peat Forests and Indigenous Wisdom
A message boldly displayed on this sign underscores the rights of Indigenous communities over their ancestral forests—rights that have been affirmed by Indonesia’s Constitutional Court.
The Difference Between Customary Forests and State Forests
Customary forests and state forests are fundamentally different in terms of ownership, management, and the rights of Indigenous communities versus those of the state.
Customary Forests
-
Passed down through generations under Indigenous customary law.
-
Managed by Indigenous communities without state intervention.
-
Full sovereignty over resource utilization remains with the Indigenous people.
-
Legally protected by Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35/PUU-X/2012, which states that customary forests are not part of state forests.
State Forests
-
Under the jurisdiction of the state, managed by the Ministry of Environment and Forestry.
-
Utilization is subject to government regulations at both national and regional levels.
-
Can be repurposed for development, plantations, mining, or strategic national projects.
Why Is Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35/PUU-X/2012 Often Ignored?
The landmark ruling explicitly affirms that customary forests do not belong to the state and that Indigenous communities have full ownership of their ancestral lands and resources.
Read The Dayak's Fields: A Historical and Practical Study of Environmentally Friendly Indigenous Wisdom
Yet in practice, the ruling is frequently disregarded or only partially implemented. Several key factors contribute to this ongoing issue:
Economic and Investment Interests
-
Many customary forest areas overlap with corporate concessions for palm oil, mining, and forestry industries.
-
The government often prioritizes large-scale investments, viewing them as key revenue sources.
Lack of Administrative Recognition
-
Indigenous communities face long and complex bureaucratic processes to obtain legal recognition of their forests.
-
Many local governments lack specific regulations acknowledging customary forests.
Legal and Political Imbalances
-
Even with a Constitutional Court ruling, enforcement depends on government and local authorities.
-
Large corporations wield significant political influence, often lobbying for policies that favor them over Indigenous land rights.
Persistent Centralized Mindset
-
The government continues to treat forests as state assets rather than Indigenous heritage.
-
National projects such as large-scale agriculture, plantations, and mining are frequently used as justifications to override Indigenous rights.
Indigenous Communities in Indonesia: A Struggle for Land Rights
Since Indonesia’s independence in 1945, Indigenous communities—particularly in Papua, Riau, Sumatra, parts of Sunda, and Borneo—have seen their rights repeatedly sidelined by the state. Instead of recognizing and protecting Indigenous land ownership, the government has often exerted control over customary lands, disregarding ancestral claims and traditional governance systems.
Read The Future of Dayak Farming: Preserving Tradition in a Digital Age
Over the decades, policies have prioritized state and corporate interests, leaving Indigenous communities in a perpetual struggle to defend their heritage and livelihoods.
One does not need empirical proof to understand this systemic neglect—the message on this signboard alone is the tip of the iceberg, a visible symbol of the deep frustration Indigenous peoples feel toward the state. It represents decades of unresolved land disputes, government indifference, and policies that favor large-scale industries over Indigenous rights. This growing discontent underscores a critical question: how long will the state continue to ignore the very people who have safeguarded these lands for generations?
What’s Next?
Customary forests are invaluable —ecologically, socially, and culturally. Constitutional Court Ruling No. 35 should have been a milestone in securing Indigenous land rights.
Read Dr. Masiun Explores and Publishes the Economic Value of Taman Sunsong’s Customary Lands
Yet, economic and political interests often stand in the way of its full implementation, forcing Indigenous communities into an ongoing struggle to defend their rights against state and corporate encroachment.
The state, which should be a protector of its people—especially Indigenous communities—has instead become a source of their suffering. In this case, the government has acted not as a guardian, but as an oppressor of Indigenous peoples.
In other words, the state has indeed become the Leviathan, just as Thomas Hobbes warned nearly four centuries ago.
-- Fidel Saputra
Posting Komentar