skip to main content

Incongruence in the Definition of Land Rights in National Agrarian Law: A Path to Legal Uncertainty

*Muh. Afif Mahfud orcid scopus  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Diponegoro, Indonesia
Sia Chin Chin scopus  -  Faculty of Business and Law, Taylor's University, Malaysia
Open Access Copyright 2023 LAW REFORM under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Legal certainty as one of the goals of national land law will not be created when there is incongruence in the definition of land rights in regulations. This incongruity may affect the formation, implementation and interpretation of law in the agrarian sector. The aim of this article is to analyze the incongruence in the definition of land rights in regulations and the impact of this incongruence in the definition. Based on the analysis, it is concluded that there is an inconsistency in the definition of land rights in Government Regulation no. 18 of 2021 which states that the authority for land rights covering above the ground and underground space is not in line with PP (Government Regulation) No. 43 of 2021. The regulation states that the authority for land rights does not cover the space above the ground and underground space. This misalignment includes horizontal incongruity, formal incongruity and substantive incongruity. It will result in unclear meaning of land rights, loss of predictability of regulations, and affecting the formation, enforcement and interpretation of laws so that there is no clear reference for the community and law enforcers in acting. Ultimately, this will affect legal protection for the community in exercising their rights. It is recommended that the government harmonize the definition of regulatory land rights.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Misalignment; Definition; Land rights; Legal certainty.

Article Metrics:

  1. Alexy, Robert. (2008). On the Concept and the Nature of Law. Ratio Juris, Vol.21, (No.3), pp.281–299. https://doi.org/10.37399/2686-9241.2022.1.169-192
  2. Ross, Alf. (1958). Definition in Legal Language. Logique Et Analyse, Vol.1, (No.1), pp.139–149. https://doi.org/10.2307/2964383
  3. Alrip, Ismail., & Kadarudin. (2021). Problematika Penggunaan Ruang Bawah Tanah Dari Aspek Yuridis. Hermeneutika, Vol.5,(No.2). http://dx.doi.org/10.33603/hermeneutika.v5i2.5938
  4. Ardani, Mira Novara. (2017). Kepemilikan Hak Atas Tanah Bagi Orang Asing Di Indonesia. Law Reform, Vol.13, (No.2), p.204. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v13i2.16156
  5. Asch, Michael., & Bell, Catherine. (2017). Definition and Interpretation of Fact in Canadian Aboriginal Title Litigation: An Analysis of Delgamuukw. Queen’s Law Journal,Vol.19,(No.2),pp.503–550. https://doi.org/10.7939/R33X8411Q
  6. Astariyani, Ni Luh Gede., Hermanto, Bagus., da Cruz, Rosino., & Wisnaeni, Fifiana. (2023). Preventive and Evaluative Mechanism Analysis on Regulatory and Legislation Reform in Indonesia. Law Reform, Vol.19, (No.2),pp.248–269. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v19i2.55819
  7. Bayefsky, Rachel. (2013). Dignity, Honour, and Human Rights: Kant’s Perspective. Political Theory,Vol.41,(No.6),pp.809–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591713499762
  8. Bix, Brian. (1991). H. L. A. Hart and the “Open Texture” of Language. Law and Philosophy, Vol.10,(No.1),pp.51–72. DOI: 10.1007/BF00144295
  9. Corley, Pamela C., & Wedeking, Justin. (2014). The ( Dis ) Advantage of Certainty : The Importance of Certainty in Language. Law and Society Review, Vol.48,(No.1),pp.35–62.DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12058
  10. Dahlman, Roberta C. (2022). Conveying meaning in legal language e Why the language of legislation needs to be more explicit than ordinary language. Journal of Pragmatics, Vol.198,pp.43–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. pragma.2022.05.009
  11. Dwiyatmi, Sri H. (2020). Asas Pemisahan Horizontal (Horizontale Scheiding Beginsel) Dan Asas Perlekatan (Verticale Accessie) Dalam Hukum Agraria Nasional. Refleksi Hukum: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Vol.5, (No.1), pp.125–144. https://doi.org/10.24246/jrh. 2020.v5.i1.p125-144
  12. Haldemann, F. (2005). Gustav Radbruch vs. Hans Kelsen: A Debate on Nazi Law. Ratio Juris,Vol.18,(No.2),pp.162–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9337.2005.00293.x
  13. Hartig, Alissa J. (2016). Conceptual Blending In Legal Writing: Linking Definitions To Facts. English for Specific Purposes, Vol.42, pp.66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2015.12.002
  14. Humphrey, John P. (1945). On the Definition and Nature of Laws. The Modern Law Review, Vol.8,(No.4),pp.194–203. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1090184
  15. Krishnakumar, Anita S. (2018). Textualism and Statutory Precedents. Virginia Law Review, Vol.5,(No.2),p.132. https://doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2724077
  16. Lang, M. (2017). Legal Uncertainty As A Welfare Enhancing Screen. European Economic Review,Vol.91,pp.274–289. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.10.007
  17. Nótári, T. (2004). Summum Ius Summa Iniuria -Comments on the Historical Background of a Legal Maxim of Interpretation.Acta Juridica Hungarica,Vol.45,(No.3),pp.301–322. https://doi.org/10.1556/ajur.45.2004.3-4.5
  18. Oermann, Markus., & Ziebarth, Lennart. (2015). Interpreting code - Adapting the Methodology To Analyze The Normative Contents Of Law For The Analysis Of Technology. Computer Law and Security Review, Vol.31, (No.2), pp.257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2015.01.008
  19. Radbruch, G. (2020). Law’s Image Of The Human. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.40,(No.4),pp.667–681. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqaa026
  20. Rusliyadi, Muhammad., & Libin, Wang. (2018). Agriculture Development Programs for Poverty Reduction Evidences from Indonesia and China - Comparative Study Case. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development,Vol.8,(No.2),pp.104–118. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.1005/2018.8.2/1005.2.104.118
  21. Squintani, Lorenzo., & van Rijswick, Marleen. (2016). Improving legal certainty and adaptability in the programmatic approach. Journal of Environmental Law, Vol.28, (No.3),pp443–470. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqw022
  22. Stevens, Caleb J. (2014). The Legal History of Public Land in Liberia. Journal of African Law,Vol.58,(No.2),pp.250-265. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0021855314000059
  23. Susetio, W. (2013). Disharmoni Peraturan Perundang-Undangan Di Bidang Agraria. Lex Jurnalica, Vol.10, (No.3), pp. 135–147. https://doi.org/10.47007/lj.v10i3.361
  24. Usai, A. (2014). Caught Between the Public Procurement Principles and the “Public Procurement Function” of Directive 2006/123/EC: Still a “Grey Zone” in Search for Legal Certainty. European Procurement & Public Private Partnership Law Review, Vol.9,(No.4),pp.228–239. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26694943
  25. Weinrib, J. (2014). Authority, Justice, And Public Law : A Unified Theory. University of Toronto Law Journal, Vol.64, (No.5), pp.703–735. DOI : 10.3138/utlj.2005
  26. Widiyono, Try., & Khan, Md Zubair Kasem. (2023). Legal Certainty in Land Rights Acquisition in Indonesia’s National Land Law. Law Reform: Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum,Vol.19,(No.1),pp.128–147. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v19i1.48393
  27. Avila, H. (2016). Certainty in Law. Switzerland: Springer
  28. Fuller, Lon L. (1964). The Morality of Law. London: Yale University Press

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-05-28 18:55:36

No citation recorded.