Implications of the Law of Land Acquisition for Development in the Public Interest on Land Acquisition Conflict Resolution

This study aims to evaluate and analyze legal certainty in resolving conflicts over land acquisition for development in the public interest in the context before and after the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2012. The research uses a normative legal research method with a statute approach. The method of analysis in this study is to use qualitative analysis. The study results indicate that legal certainty in resolving conflicts over land acquisition for development in the public interest in the context before and after the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2012, obviously very different. However, from the two cases, land acquisition and compensation for land rights for development in the public interest have not been processed and run effectively. Based on this conclusion, it is recommended that laws and regulations on land acquisition for development in the public interest be more clarified, particularly regarding deliberation activities and the form/amount of compensation value. In addition, all stakeholders involved in negotiating the agreement must attach importance to the principle of deliberation and consensus regarding land acquisition for development in the public interest.


INTRODUCTION
It is impossible to deny that every country's development of construction activities is closely related to land acquisition. The land acquisition system and objectives useful for development projects in Indonesia are broadly classified into growth in the public interest and personal or private interest. Land acquisition for development in the public interest is carried out based on laws and regulations with direct involvement from the government. According to Mudakir Iskandar Syah, the formulation of "most strata of society" is more appropriate to use in the context of public interest. In this case, as based on Article 1 point 5 of Presidential Regulation of the Republic of Indonesia Number 65 of 2006 on Amendment to Presidential Regulation Number 36 of 2005 on Land Acquisition for the Implementation of Development in the Public Interest, explaining that "the public interest is the interest of most strata of society". However, this provision can be understood that all communities do not necessarily utilize public facilities. Meanwhile, land acquisition for personal or private interest development is based on buying and selling activities or transactions or exchanges. This classification is because the community will apply disparity in procedures in land acquisition practices.
The land acquisition process involves various interests owned or carried by the parties. As is often the case in society, there is a potential conflict if this process is not controlled correctly. 1 Ideally, the public interest process development is carried out after the land acquisition procedure is complete. In this case, development activities do not harm or reduce the standard of living of landowners and owners of land rights or objects. Although specific laws and regulations regulate land acquisition for development in the public interest, it often faces obstacles and problems. In the end, these conditions can cause violations to the owner of the land rights, and development cannot move in harmony.
The land acquisition that affects the loss of part or all of the land requires a compensation process, with an amount of money or things that will be concessioned with land in other areas. Therefore, implementing the development of a project will require a land acquisition of the location of a project. 2 So several strategic factors need to be studied further. First, development in the public interest aims to distribute many benefits to the community and has a high economic value. 3 The delayed infrastructure development projects result from difficulties in regulation and land acquisition. In this case, the community's benefits of infrastructure are not enjoyed directly. Of course, this situation will hinder the community's prosperity development plan. Second, development in the public interest related to land rights issues, the release, and revocation or abolition of the owner's rights to land. This condition concerns human rights, namely the relationship with the livelihoods of the land rights holders and their materials. Elements of land acquisition must be in line with the objectives of the land rights holder. In this case, the laws and regulations on land acquisition for development in the public interest will always be related to protecting property rights by rights holders. The government's position in carrying out land acquisition 1 Utomo, S. (2020) must still have limits and controls so that there is no abuse of authority and power. Third, although the concept and design of land acquisition for development in the public interest do not provide opportunities for private participation, efforts to legitimize the private sector to participate in the land acquisition for development in the public interest mechanism are still carried out laws and regulations. Fourth, from an economic and political perspective, the antecedents of land acquisition for the public interest return to the question of international influences and pressures in policy formulation and definition.
Development does not always side with humanity. Sometimes development even marginalizes and even gets rid of the weak. The Kedung Ombo Reservoir development project is the most straightforward example of how growth excludes most people. In the late 1980s, the New Order regime faced the most dramatic and severe resistance of the many infrastructure development projects during this regime's reign. The development of the Kedung Ombo Reservoir, located right on the border of three regencies -Boyolali, Sragen, and Grobogan-bears witness to the various practices commonly carried out by the New Order regime at that time to force development in the name of 'national interest'. Intimidation, persecution, stigmatization, and forced displacement are common for those considered 'rebellious'.
The development of the Kedung Ombo Reservoir, financed mainly by loans from the World Bank, was not easy. This situation was inseparable from the government's approach, where the New Order followed a top-down approach through the state structure from the district level to the sub-district level and down to the village level. The village apparatus is used as a government "institution" responsible for explaining plans for dam development, land acquisition, and payment of compensation. The onesided approach of the apparatus in the land acquisition process and compensation determination has complicated the case of the Kedung Ombo Reservoir. 4 This situation also causes the public to assume that their interests are not protected by law, resulting in violations of the community's human rights and civil rights, which violates the community's sense of justice towards government policies and decisions. 5 After an extended dynamic, the Government of Indonesia has finally passed a detailed law governing land acquisition, namely  However, land acquisition problems are still often encountered today and even clash with the development process that the Government of Indonesia must carry out. 6 For example, landowners decide on a price that is deemed unreasonable. In addition, the state also unilaterally determines the price of compensation and uses coercion. This situation gives the impression that the rights and interests of landowners are not legally protected. 7 In contrast, Article 1 point 2 of Law No. 2 of 2012, explains that "Land Acquisition means providing land by giving adequate and fair compensation to the entitled party". Furthermore, based on Article 42 section (1) of Law No. 2 of 2012, regulates that: "In the event that the Entitled Party refuses the form and/or amount of compensation based on the results of the deliberation as referred to in Article 37, or the Decision of the District Court/Supreme Court as referred to in Article 38, the compensation shall be deposited in the local district court." There has been much previous research related to land acquisition for development in the public interest in Indonesia, including: 1. Urip Santoso discusses dispute resolution in a land acquisition taken through deliberation between the agency that requires the land and the party who is entitled to it, a lawsuit, or an objection to the court. 8  only generally discusses terms dispute resolution in land acquisition for the public interest based on the latest law. Meanwhile, this research will compare the two dispute cases in the land acquisition which resolutions use two different legal bases. 2. Hardianto Djanggih & Salle discusses land acquisition analysis to create legal certainty in land acquisition for local governments. 9 In this case, that research only discusses aspects of the agencies that play a role in land acquisition to implement development in the public interest. Meanwhile, this research will also discuss the terms of problems when there is a dispute in land acquisition. 3. Mukmin Zakie conducted a comparative study between Indonesia and Malaysia in providing land for the public interest. 10 In this case, that research discusses the regulation of land acquisition and its concept for the benefit of the people. Meanwhile, this research has differences in the object of comparison and the problems.
Based on the above background, this study aims to evaluate and analyze legal certainty in resolving conflicts over land acquisition for development in the public interest in the context before and after the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2012. In addition, it is also to identify, analyze, and explain solutions to problems in land acquisition for development in the public interest.

METHOD
The research uses a normative legal research method with a statute approach. This understanding is research that prioritizes legal materials in legislation and court decisions as the primary reference material in conducting research or assessment. The normative approach in the legal context is intended as something autonomous with its validity determined by the law. Based on this, the law is the final result and has been declared perfect so that it remains only to be implemented. 11 The type of data that we will use is secondary data. The data comes from library materials by tracing the literature associated with land acquisition for development in the public interest. Secondary data includes primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The primary legal materials as secondary data used in this study consist of: The data collection technique in this research is a literature study. In this case, the legal materials, both primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. While the data analysis method to be carried out is the qualitative analysis method, namely the method that prioritizes processes, meaning processes that occur and take place at the source of the data and the entire context that includes it, in addition to the data generated.  When there is no agreement regarding the compensation, the disputed land will still be worked on for reservoir development.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The plaintiff argues that the plaintiffs are not opposed to using their land rights in the public interest, as long as the procedure is carried out following the applicable regulations, namely through a balanced agreement. However, in reality, the compensation is considered inadequate and without consideration. Not to mention the intimidation by the local subdistrict head in which the community was threatened with three months in prison and a fine of Rp. 10,000 if they did not accept the compensation. After they serve their sentence, the land will become the state's property where the army and police will carry out strict security complete with weapons.
In January 1989, the land belonging to the Plaintiffs had been worked on for reservoir development. Therefore, Defendant can be declared to have committed an unlawful act. In this case, because they have harmed Plaintiff, Plaintiff was forced to flee to another place. "If the person entitled to land and/or objects whose rights have been revoked is not willing to accept compensation as enacted in that presidential decree in articles 5 and 6, because they think the amount is inadequate, then they can appeal to the High Court, whose jurisdiction includes the location of the land and/or that object, so that the court will determine the amount of the compensation. The High Court decides that problem in the first and last instance." From the above provisions, the Legal Considerations of the Semarang District Court is problematic because the Judge in interpreting Article 8 section (1) of Law No. 20 of 1961 is too shallow. In this case, it is as if Article 8 section (1) of Law No. 20 of 1961 gives the Governor the authority to determine the form and amount of compensation imposed on the owners of the land concerned. Whereas in accordance with applicable legal principles, there has never been such an authority granted through a regulation that is "lower" than the law itself in this situation by a Regulation of the Minister of Internal Affairs. However, Presidential Decision No. 55 of 1993 is more flexible in managing it. So what is determined by the Governor is not a final decision. Those with land rights still have the opportunity to express or object. As emphasized that the land acquisition procedure can be through other transactions such as buying and selling or leasing must be based on mutual agreement. 12 So it must be interpreted that if the landowner still refuses, the project may be cancelled or transferred to another place. If it must be carried out at that location, then the effort to be made is the revocation of rights.
Regarding the consignment of judges' considerations on page 333, paragraph 3 and next paragrap, based on the Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme Court letter dated November 16, 1988 No. 578/1320/88/11/UM-TU/Pdt. AP Parlindungan thinks that the consignment problem is an activity that seems to be based on existing law. 13 This situation is also regulated in Regulation of the Minister of Internal Affairs No. 15 of 1975. If the Government does it for the benefit of the community, then according to AP Parlindungan, it accepts it as jurisprudence on the land acquisition event. This case, namely "Pondok Derita" in Jakarta and Kedung Ombo Reservoir in Central Java. The problem is if it is extended to land acquisition for private parties.
In the Supreme Court's Cassation decision, the Panel of Judges decided that the meaning of 'consensus deliberation', such as the compensation clause in the Kedung Ombo Reservoir case, needed to be redefined. The agreement is based on deliberation between the Central Java regional government and residents. In this case, in the form of confessions, evidence in the record of photos of deliberation, as well as a consensus between residents and the Head of the District Attorney's Office, the Head of the Resort Police, the Commander of the Military District Command proposed by the defendant (Central Java Regional Government), were ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has found that this does not reflect true material justice because it does not reflect essential truths. The procedure is just momentum and does not prove the implementation of a deliberate and mutually agreed upon land purchase. In addition, the presence of stakeholders sent by the defendant harms the deliberation and agreement on implementing the land purchase for the Kedung Ombo Reservoir irrigation project. The understanding that can be drawn from the settlement of the Kedung Ombo Reservoir case above is that the direction of state policy translated into laws and regulations to become the legal basis for judges later still lies in prioritizing development (for the public interest) rather than individual rights. The interaction of laws and regulations with judges or the court's position above results in an interpretation of 'public interest' in a broad sense, namely prioritizing social functions 14 and benefits of project development rather than the public interest. In this case, the individual's rights must succumb or be limited by the social function.

B. Implication of Law No. 12 of 2012: Bakauheni -Terbanggi Besar Toll Road Case
Bakauheni -Terbanggi Besar toll road case involves Saimi Saleh as Petitioner who owns 3 (three) plots in 1 (one) field of 40,373 m 2 (forty thousand three hundred seventy-three square meters). In this case, it is located in Sukanegara Village, Tanjung  (1) The conduct of the deliberation as referred to in Article 68 may be divided into several groups by considering the number of Entitled Parties, the time and place of the deliberation on the determination of Compensation; (2) In the event that an agreement has not been reached, the deliberation as referred to in section (1) may be held more than 1 (one) time; (3) The deliberation as referred to in section (1) and section (2)  From the above provisions, the phrase "... the form and/or amount of Compensation ..." where the application of the word "and/or" indicates one or more than one possibility. In this case, it can be treated as "and" as well as "or". Therefore, when applied in the provisions of the article, it means: 1. The meeting is held to determine the form and amount of Compensation; 2. The meeting is held to determine the form or amount of Compensation.
Therefore, deliberation to determine compensation is prioritized regarding the form of retribution, while it is not mandatory regarding the amount of compensation. In this case, because the amount of the compensation value is the authority of the public appraiser (Appraisal), namely Participating Defendant Objection I, to conduct the assessment. Based on Article 68 section (3)  Therefore, the deliberation conducted to determine compensation is only required regarding the form of retribution, while the amount of damages is not required. So in the opinion of the Panel of Judges in the Court, the deliberation was held on March 17, 2017, according to the applicable procedures. This assessment was also strengthened by preliminary evidence in the form of an invitation to deliberation on the condition of compensation and the testimony of witnesses presented by the Petitioner. In this case, it is stated that the witnesses were present at the meeting held at the Residential KORPRI, where the activity discussed compensation land acquisition for the development of

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
Based on the descriptions above, it can be concluded that legal certainty in resolving conflicts over land acquisition for development in the public interest in the context before and after the enactment of Law No. 2 of 2012, obviously very different. However, from the two cases, land acquisition and compensation for land rights for development in the public interest has not been processed and has not run effectively. In the Kedung Ombo Reservoir case, the Supreme Court found that this does not reflect true material justice because it does not reflect essential truths. The procedure is just momentum and does not prove the implementation of a deliberate and mutually agreed upon land purchase. In this case, although deliberation has indeed been carried out, the situation is not balanced. Meanwhile, it differs from the Bakauheni -Terbanggi Besar toll road case, where Petitioner considered that the meeting with the Defendant's attorneys held on March 17, 2017, was not a deliberation activity. Therefore, Petitioner's appeal on September 26, 2017, has expired and does not meet the formal requirements based on Regulation of the Supreme Court No. 3 of 2016. Based on this conclusion, it is recommended that laws and regulations on land acquisition for development in the public interest be more clarified, particularly regarding deliberation activities and the form/amount of compensation value. In addition, all stakeholders involved in negotiating the agreement must attach importance to the principle of deliberation and consensus regarding land acquisition for development in the public interest.