by
Myrna A. Safitri
Founder and member of HuMa Association, Executive Director of Epistema Institute, lecturer at the Faculty of Law, Universitas Pancasila.
Speech delivered at the Opening of the People’s Law Congress
HuMa Association
Jakarta, October 8, 2013

Greetings, Nusantara!

Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to begin this lecture by quoting an excerpt from my experience a year ago. This experience took place in a village, in the remote area of the Mahakam Delta, East Kalimantan. The villagers had to share their land with a foreign oil and gas company. This has been going on for more than 30 years. The villagers’ lives were filled with hopes of receiving ‘blessings’ from the presence of the company. However, what happened never equaled the loss of land as the main and more permanent source of welfare for the villagers.

Certainly, stories like this are common among you, the People’s Law Advocates. What I would like to add from this story is that suddenly the community was informed that their lands were designated as state forests. There were no more land administration services available in the village and district. The villagers said, “If we are considered as citizens, why are we not allowed to enter our own state land while the foreign company is free to drill for oil and gas on our state land?” We witnessed that these citizens have been alienated from their own country’s wealth.

In another story, I would like to remind all of you of the events in 1999. That was when the first Congress of Indigenous Peoples of the Archipelago was held. The heroic statement that later became the binding force of the indigenous community movement was: “If the state does not recognize us, we will not recognize the state.”

What I want to convey with the two stories above is that in the eyes of most indigenous people, as well as other local communities, the state in its various forms shows four tendencies.

First, a state that neglects the recognition of indigenous communities’ existence; Second, a state that neglects to protect the rights of citizens to welfare sources from land and natural resources; Third, a state that is absent when violence occurs during conflicts; Fourth, a state that readily sells natural resources to national and foreign business groups without balancing it with fair allocation of natural resources for indigenous communities and other local communities. In relation to this, I would like to quote a statement from the former Head of the National Land Agency, Joyo Winoto, who estimated that around 0.2% of the population in Indonesia controls about 56% of the national assets, some of which are in the form of land (Statement by former Head of the National Land Agency, Joyo Winoto). Similarly, a similar situation can be found in the forestry sector. Out of all forest utilization permits issued by the Minister of Forestry, 99.7% are accessed by companies, and only 0.3% are accessed by the community. Data from the 2011 Forestry Statistics show that around seven million hectares of forest land are used for plantation and mining purposes. This is far from the 120 thousand hectares of permits that have been granted to the community.

The legal reform initiated by civil society groups, of which HuMa Association is an active part, aims for state legal reform. I must emphasize here that the law needs to be viewed broadly. Not only the existing norm system due to state power coercion, but also the norm system that grows, is implemented, and respected by the community. This is what is called people’s law.

State legal reform aims to correct the four tendencies of the state that I mentioned earlier. The goal is very simple, to make the state fulfill its mandate as stated in the Preamble of the 1945 Constitution: to protect all citizens, provide welfare and justice for all people.

So, how should state legal reform be carried out?

We need a new measure to assess the success of legal reform. Legal reform can no longer be measured by the quantity and type of legislation produced (legal reform) and the establishment and revitalization of legal institutions and other state institutions (institutional reform).

Furthermore, the assessment of legal reform must delve into questions:

To what extent do the legal and institutional changes made by the government and other state organizers actually create justice for the poorest, most disadvantaged, and most vulnerable communities, especially indigenous and other local communities? How can the government and state organizers preserve the environment and existing natural resources?

A state legal system and practice that can achieve justice is the goal of legal reform. Ironically, the road to this goal is still long. I acknowledge that there have been changes in legislation and institutions. However, we often see many shortcomings as well.

Ultimately, Indonesia is at the lowest level of a formal legal state. Many laws and regulations are made to limit