Indonesia's parliament has passed legislation aimed at resolving the country's longstanding land conflicts. The Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat (DPR) adopted the bill, whose full operative text was not detailed in the initial reporting reviewed by Global Law Wire.

The measure targets overlapping tenure claims that have stalled infrastructure delivery, agribusiness investment, and recognition of customary holdings across Indonesia's more than 17,000 islands. Tenure uncertainty has long been identified as a brake on foreign direct investment, particularly in mining and plantation sectors.

In Indonesia's standard legislative process, the bill would proceed to the presidency for signature; the available reporting did not confirm whether that step had occurred at publication.

Why land conflicts persist in Indonesia

Indonesia's tenure regime rests on the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960 (Law No. 5 of 1960), which declared customary land to fall under state control pending registration. Successive titling programs — most prominently the Complete Systematic Land Registration (PTSL) initiative launched in 2017 — have issued millions of certificates but left substantial parcels in legal ambiguity.

Registration remains incomplete across forested, customary, and unregistered agricultural areas, leaving them vulnerable to overlapping claims.

Three categories of dispute recur in reported casework:

• Ancestral claims by indigenous communities, who secured a Constitutional Court ruling in 2013 (Decision No. 35/PUU-X/2012) holding that customary forests cannot be converted without community consent.
• Overlapping commercial concessions in plantation, mining, and real-estate sectors, where state-issued permits frequently overlap with prior customary or informal claims.
• State acquisitions for public works that have triggered protests, litigation, and in some cases forced displacement from Aceh to Papua.

What does the new law change?

The available reporting identifies only the parliament, the policy aim, and the category of dispute. Conveyancing lawyers, in-house counsel at agribusiness and mining companies, and NGOs advising customary communities will watch the bill's treatment of four points once the text is public:

• Whether the 2013 Constitutional Court decision on customary forests is reaffirmed, narrowed, or overridden.
• Compensation rules for revoked concessions, particularly those issued before any new registration deadline.
• The hierarchy of evidence required to resolve competing claims — registered title, possession, or customary use.
• The dispute-resolution forum — administrative tribunals under BPN, the general courts, or a hybrid mechanism.

Until the operative text is published, practitioners cannot advise clients on restructured transactions or revised due-diligence protocols. Concession-holders face the largest near-term uncertainty, since retroactive application would directly affect existing permits.

Practical consequence for practitioners

In-house counsel at plantation, mining, and infrastructure companies should pause transaction workflows that depend on disputed parcels until the bill's text and implementing regulations emerge. NGOs advising customary communities should prepare submissions on the bill's compatibility with the 2013 Constitutional Court ruling. Joint ventures with state-owned enterprises should review concession documents for re-registration or renegotiation clauses.

Conveyancing lawyers should flag affected titles in ongoing transactions and notify clients of potential delays in the Land Office (Kantor Pertanahan) registration pipeline. Cross-border investors should expect Indonesian counterparties to seek representations and warranties on title status.

What remains unclear

The source did not specify the bill's working title, the date of DPR passage, the vote margin, or the list of supporting and opposing factions. Indonesia's state gazette (Lembaran Negara) will carry the authoritative text once presidential signing concludes.

Watch for implementing regulations, which typically follow within six to twelve months and determine the law's practical effect on pending disputes.