POLICY RECONSTRUCTION FOR

FORMER OF KINGDOM LAND IN SOCIAL JUSTICE

(Study on Former of Kingdom Land at Former Surakarta Residency,
Central Java)

IGA Gangga Santi Dewi

Faculty of Law Diponegoro University, Jl. Prof. Soedharto, SH, Semarang, Indonesia
ayu_gangga@live.undip.ac.id

Emy Handayani
Faculty of Law Diponegoro University, Jl. Prof. Soedharto, SH, Semarang, Indonesia
emyfhundip@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT
Former of kingdom land policy based on the value of social justice is a necessity so that the government issues
former of kingdom land policies that contain compensation received by former kingdoms to be more just and
humane for the welfare of life after the land they were deleted into state land based on the Dictum IV letter A
UUPA (Agrarian Law).

Keywords: policy; former of kingdom land; UUPA (Agrarian Law).

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Land has a very important meaning, because a large part of human life depends on land. Land is a source
of livelihood to earn a living and live together. Article 33 paragraph (3) of UUD 1945 (Constitution) states that:
"Earth and water and the natural resources contained therein shall be controlled by the state and used for the
greatest prosperity of the people". The contents of Article 33 paragraph (3) of Constitution contain a
constitutional mandate which is very basic for the state, namely that land must be used to realize people's
welfare. Land arrangements that do not bring prosperity to the people are morally contrary to UUD 1945, the
constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.
Based on the authority of the state with state control rights (Hak Menguasai Negara/HMN), the state can
determine which lands individuals and legal entities may have and which lands which may not be owned by
individuals or legal entities and land for public purposes. Therefore, in the case of the abolition of land rights
into state land, the state must pay attention to the rights of its citizens as stipulated by the Constitution and the
applicable laws and regulations. Act No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles (LN of
1960 No. 104, TLN No. 2043), hereinafter referred to as Agrarian Law (UUPA), is one of the legal grounds for
all land policies in Indonesia.
The constitutional foundation of UUD 1945 Article 28 H Paragraph (4) states that every person has the
right to have personal rights and such property rights are not entitled to be taken arbitrarily by anyone. The state
as the duty holder must protect the rights of former of the kingdom land ownership in Indonesia.

1
 The phenomenon of substantive injustice related to the policy of former of kingdom land in the Dictum
IV letter A of the Agrarian Law which states that "the rights and authorities of the land and water of the
‘swapraja’ or former ‘swapraja’ (kingdom) which still exist at the time of entry into force of this law remove and
turning to the State ", is an injustice felt by the formerempire, considering that land rights are private rights that
cannot be taken arbitrarily. This happened also because there was no proper compensation 1 for the loss of their
life's rights to life due to arbitrary land acquisition by the state.
The meaning of the former of kingdom land that was different between the regional government and the
former of kingdom party was also one of the triggers of the conflict in Indonesia. This is where former of
kingdoms claim they are indigenous people who have lived hundreds of years living in their territories and are
one descendant or one ancestor. Even the assets of land ownership with their hundreds of years of business have
been taken for granted without compensation from the government.
The former of kingdom land policy based on the value of social justice became a necessity so that the
government issued former of kingdom land policies that included compensation received by former of kingdoms
to be more just and humane for living welfare after their land was deleted into state land based on Diktum IV
letter A Agrarian Law.

1.2. Research Objectives

The purpose of this study is:
1) To determine the reality of the enactment of the policy of former of kingdom land in the former of
Surakarta Residency.
2) To find out the factors that led to the policy of the former of kingdom land in the former of Surakarta
Residency did not reflect social justice.
3) To find out the reconstruction of the policy of former of kingdom land in Indonesia based on social
justice.

2. RESEARCH AND DISCUSSION RESULTS

2.1. Reality of the Policy of the Former of Kingdom Land of Surakarta and Mangkunegaran
2.1.1. General Description of The Former of Kingdom Surakarta and Mangkunegaran
Kingdom of Surakarta is located in the Surakarta city and the territory during this period :
a. Kutaraga or Kutanegara with the Kingdom of Kings as a center, Kutaraga or the State is the first circle of
territory.
b. The Great State is the area around Kutaraga, which is still the core of the kingdom, because in this area
there are real titles from nobles who reside in Kutaraga (in the Bagelen area of Negaragung, Surakarta
and Yogyakarta, overlapping).
c. Abroad is an area outside the supreme state, which includes : Mancanegara Wetan in the Bagelen area of
the Negaragung region (from Ponorogo to the east), and Mancanegara Kulon (from Banyumas to the
west).

1 Explanation of Article 60 Letter C Law No. 26 of 2007 concerning Urban Planning referred to as adequate replacement is
that the value or amount of reimbursement does not reduce the level of welfare of people who are given reimbursement in
accordance with statutory provisions.

2
 d. The Pasisiran area consist : Pasisiran Kulon (Demak to the west) and Pasisiran Wetan (Demak to the
east).
Based on history, before Indonesian independence, the Kingdom of Surakarta was a country in the form
of a sovereign kingdom and descended from the kingdom of Mataram. The kingdom's power is based on the
king's ownership of the land under his control.

TABLE 1: Assets Ownership of the Surakarta Kasunanan

Company /Asset Assets Year Established

Kedhaton Building, covering buildings: 1767

Panggung Sangga Buwana, Maligi, Sasana Sewaka,

Paningrat, Pringgitan Parasdya, Prabasuyasa,

Sasana Handrawina, Keputren, Banon Cinawi,

Keraton Kulon, Bandengan, Masjid Pudyoso, Madusuko, Langen
Katong, Bangsal Puspan, Sasana Hadi

Based on the Giyanti agreement, namely the Dutch VOC agreement with the Mataram Kingdom in
1755, the Mataram Kingdom was divided into 2 regions namely Yogyakarta for Sultan Hamengku Buwuno I
and Surakarta for Pakubuwana III . The royal system related to customs still applies to the Kasunanan Surakarta
and Kasultanan Yogyakarta to continue until now with the issuance of Presidential Decree No.23 of 1988
concerning the Status and Management of the Kasunanan Surakarta kingdom for Kasunanan and Act No. 13 of
2012 concerning the Privileges of the Special Region of Yogyakarta to the Kasultanan of Yogyakarta. This is
where the 2 kingdoms have certain rights to regulate their land and buildings which are regulated in these 2 laws
and regulations.
In the Salatiga agreement on March 17, 1757 in Salatiga, Prince Sambernyawa (Son of Pakubuwono
III) obtained the Mangkunegaran Temple. Prince Sambernyawa was not involved in this agreement with the
Netherlands. Therefore, Mangkunegaran is not a kingdom because it does not follow the rules of the two
Kingdoms.
The position of the former kingdom of Surakarta as a royal region in the era of Indonesian
independence was stipulated in legislation which was the implementation of the provisions of Article 18 of
UUD 1945, namely:
1) Indonesian Government Charter dated August 19, 1945 which stated that Surakarta Susuhunan
remained in its position. This charter was then followed by the Announcement / Mandate of Pakoe
Boewono XII on September 1, 1945 which contained "............ declaring the State of Soerakarta,
which is of a ceremonial nature, a country of Repoeblik Indonesia, and standing behind Poesat
Repoeblik Indonesia Government ".
2) Act number 1 0f 1945 which stipulates the procurement of Regional National Committees in the
Residency, autonomous Cities and Regencies, excludes the formation of Surakarta and Yogyakarta
Regional National Committees.

3
 3) Determination of Government Number 16/SD Year 1946 dated July 15, 1946 which stipulates that
the area of the Kasunanan Surakarta and Kadipaten Mangkunegaran is temporarily as a Residency
headed by a Resident.
4) Act No. 10 of 1950 which stipulates the establishment of Central Java Province which includes
among others the Surakarta Residency.
5) Act number 16 of 1950 which, among others, establishes Surakarta as a big city.
6) Act number 18 of 1965 concerning the Principles of Regional Government, Article 88 paragraph
(3), stipulates that the de facto and / or de jure royal areas until the coming into force of this Act
still exist and the territory has become a territory or part administrative area, declared deleted.
With the abolition of the Kingdom area based on this Act, the Surakarta Kingdom abolished its position
as a legal entity, especially as a public legal entity, because the Kingdom of Surakarta is no longer a party that
has the rights and obligations regulated by public law.2
Based on the policy of Act number 18 of 1965 concerning the Principles of Regional Government, the
legal position of the Kingdom of Surakarta is only a group of people bound by a family relationship headed by
Sinuhun. Based on the Treaty of Salatiga, Mangkunegaran is separate from the Kingdom of Surakarta and stands
alone as a customary association led by a Prince called Mangkunegoro. Thus, since 1755, Mangkunegaran was
not a kingdom but was an indigenous community with Raden Mas Said's customary leader known as
Sambernyawa.
Mangkunegaran is not a kingdom but in the form of indigenous people living together in an area (Puro
Mangkunegaran) and personally Mangkunegoro I to Mangkunegoro IX buy land and building assets outside
Puro Mangkunegaran namely in other regions or cities, such as land in Colomadu Karanganyar used as sugar
factories as well as Tasikmadu tea gardens in Kemuning Colomadu Karanganyar and others mentioned in Table
2 of personal money not from the Dutch colony3.

TABLE 2: Mangkunegaran Property Companies and Assets

ESTABLISHMENTYEAR
NO COMPANY /ASSETS
ESTABLISHMENT
1. Colomadu Sugar Company 1861

2. Sugar Company 1871

3. TasikmalayaWorking Coffee Company in 1917

4. Pineapple Fiber Company Mojogedangan 1922

5. KemiriGenting 1922

6. PlantFactory "Priyayi" Cigarettes 1930

7. Gamping Company "Betal" 1928

8. Tobacco Planting Business in Tawangmangu 1929

2 Sugeng Istanto, Ringkasan Laporan Penelitian Tanah Kerajaan Surakarta, Hasil Kerjasama Yayasan Pawiyatan
Kabudayaan Kerajaan Surakarta dan Universitas Atmajaya Yogyakarta, 2002, not published, pp. 2 – 5.
3 Interview with Mr. Santo, historical expert, Sebelas Maret Surakarta University, August 7, 2018.

4
 9. Home and Milik Mangkunegaran Hotel 1917

10. Securities at Javasche Bank 1932

11. Pension Fund Mangkunegaran Companies 1926

2.1.2. Former of Surakarta kingdom and former of Mangkunegaran Kingdom Land Policy
Prior to Indonesian independence, the Surakarta kingdom system placed the king as landowner in all
kingdoms, so the king had the right to regulate land use and land use as he wished, including giving land to
someone deemed meritorious to the kingdom and revoking the gift at any time.
In subsequent developments after the Palihan Negari namely the division of the Mataram Kingdom
into two, namely the Kingdom of Surakarta and the Kingdom of Yogyakarta with the Giyanti Agreement on 13
February 1755 and the division of the Kingdom of Surakarta with Prince Sambernyowo (Mangkunegoro I) with
the Salatiga Agreement 4. This means that Mangkunegaran stands alone as a customary law community with the
Chairperson of the Adat Mangkunegoro I. The status of the Surakarta Kingdom's land before Indonesian
independence was divided into five groups :
a. Domein Recht Kingdom of Surakarta (DRS), namely kingdom land under the rule of the
scattered Kingdom of Surakarta in the territory of the Kingdom of Surakarta.
b. Domein Kingdom of Surakarta (DKS), which is land that belongs to the Kingdom of
Surakarta, for example Alun-Alun Utara, Alun-Alun Selatan, dan Baluwarti.
c. Sunan Grond (SG), which is a private land that belongs to Sunan.
d. Ancestral land, namely land which is a legacy from Sinuhun Pakubuwono who had ruled
before. For example the land of traces and tombs.
e. Land of Recht Van Eigendom (RVE), which is land belonging to the kingdom of Surakarta
which is leased, for example to the Netherlands and planters.
The management of land and buildings by the kingdom of Surakarta, which began before the issuance
of Presidential Decree No. 23 of 1988 concerning the Status and Management of the Kasunanan Surakarta
Palace, began to be intensified again in 2000/2001 by the Pasiten Section. The part of Pasiten (siti means land)
in the Kingdom of Surakarta is a part (institution) that has the authority to take care of land belonging to the
Kingdom of Surakarta. This Pasiten institution has existed since ancient times, together with the establishment
of the Surakarta kingdom. The tasks of the Pasiten Section are to take :
1) care of land and building problems belonging to the kingdom of Surakarta.
2) Arrange for permits relating to the use of land and buildings belonging to the Surakarta kingdom.
3) Receive payment of rent for land and buildings belonging to the kingdom of Surakarta.
In the era of Paku Buwono XIII, Pasiten Pengageng has direct authority over land affairs which belong
to the Surakarta kingdom. The various rights permitted by the Surakarta kingdom include the privilege of being
obliged to paymoney dhudhuk lumpur to the Parentah of Surakarta Kingdom, the right of the land if the
kingdom of Surakarta will take it back, the user must return the house in a good condition as usual, and given
proper severance, magersari rights provided that the kingdom of Surakarta asks for land and buildings, the user
must return the land in an empty condition and not ask for compensation or other similar matters. The Griya

4 Sinto, historian expert of Sebelas Maret University Surakarta, April 11, 2018.

5
Pasiten requires the contractor to pay contract money in accordance with the agreement between the contractor
and the kingdom of Surakarta.
Based on Article 2 of Presidential Decree No. 23 of 1988 concerning the Status and Management of the
Kasunanan Surakarta kingdom, the Surakarta kingdom can use the kingdom and all its accessories for the
purposes of ceremonies, anniversaries, and other celebrations in the context of the Surakarta Kingdom's
traditional ceremonies. This regulation stipulates that the royal building and all its facilities both inside the walls
of the kingdom of Surakarta and its other features, the Masjid Agung and Alun-Alun Kerajaan (kingdom square)
can be used in traditional ceremonies and memorials. Traditional buildings and ceremonies held by the
Surakarta Kingdom and Surakarta society are an inseparable entity. This proves that it can be said that the
Surakarta Kingdom is a customary institution that is still recognized by customary law communities in Surakarta
City until now.
Problems related to the management of royal buildings have occurred in Lor/North Square. Since
Indonesian independence, on August 17, 1945, North / North Square was controlled by the Surakarta City
Government, so that if there are any Sekaten celebrations or any royal customary activities, those who receive
income from land rent are Surakarta City Government. In the 1998 reform era, precisely since the fall of the
New Order, the Kingdom of Surakarta took over management until now, so that the Kingdom of Surakarta
received financial income. If the Surakarta City Government will use it must be prior permission to the
Kingdom of Surakarta (Kasunanan).
Mangkunegara as a customary law community, in managing land by collecting land and buildings
owned by Mangkunegaran is carried out in a simple way. Recording is done by indigenous people who are still
relatives of Mangkunegaran. Mangkunegaran lands are shared land (ulayat land) and Mangkunegoro's private
land (recorded in the village book and village map).
Kasunanan is given limited authority in Alun-Alun Utara (North Square) and Alun-Alun Selatan (South
Square) and the Masjid Agung (Great Mosque). The kingdom uses this Presidential Decree as a basis for
carrying out data collection on land and buildings belonging to the kingdom, both inside and outside the
kingdom walls. This data collection uses Palilah Griya Pasiten, where residents who use land and buildings
belonging to the kingdom, must actively register with the kingdom regarding the physical data of the building
and who occupies the building.
Article 1 of Presidential Decree No. 23 of 1988 stated that the land and buildings of the Surakarta
Surakarta empire along with all the accessories contained therein (including the Masjid Agung and Alun-alun
kerajaan) belong to the Surakarta court which needs to be preserved as a cultural heritage. Referring to the
article 1 of the Presidential Decree, it was clear that the land and buildings belonged to Kasunanan. Though
Kasunanan as kingdom is not the subject of land rights. The subjects of land rights stipulated in the Agrarian
Law as national land law in Indonesia are only individuals and legal entities. This means that the Presidential
Decree deviates from the Act.
Article 2 of Presidential Decree No. 23 of 1988 states Sri Susuhunan as the leader of the Surakarta
Kasunanan can use the kingdom and all its accessories for the purposes of ceremonies, anniversaries, and other
celebrations in the framework of the Kasunanan royal custom. Whereas based on the Decree of the Surakarta
KDH Tk II No.646 / 116 / I / 1997 concerning the Determination of Historic Ancient Buildings and Areas in the

6
Surakarta Municipality of Dati II protected by Act No. 5 of 1992 concerning Cultural Heritage, the Surakarta
royal buildings in table 1 are cultural heritage objects.
The Surakarta City Government disagrees with the provisions of Article 1 of the Presidential Decree
and with the Surakarta Mayor's Letter addressed to the Minister of Tourism and Telecommunications No. 646.3 /
545/88 dated August 18, 1988 stated as follows5 :
1) From the results of observations, especially Article 1 of Presidential Decree No. 23 of 1988 which
reads: (1) The land and buildings of the Surakarta royal court, along with all the equipment contained in
it, belong to the Surakarta court which needs to be preserved as a cultural heritage. (2) Included in the
sense of completeness of the kingdom are Masjid Agung (The Great Mosque) and Alun-alun Kerajaan
(the Royal Square). The word "property" above, so as not to cause a misunderstanding of "property
rights" as referred to in Article 20 of the Agrarian Law, please allow us to propose / argue that
Presidential Decree No. 23 of 1988 can be given an explanation that is included / contained in the
implementation instructions as referred to in Article 4, with the following proposals: "what is meant by
property as Article 1 of Presidential Decree No. 23 of 1988 is not in the sense of property as referred to
in Article 20 of the U ". However, the definition of "property" is only related to the preservation of the
values of the royal culture and traditional royal ceremonies.
2) Palace buildings and the surrounding lands and these lands are essentially called land - including option
Article 10 paragraph (1) so that it belongs to the treasury. Because it belongs to the treasury, the
management of the buildings and land is in the hands of the government of the Republic of Indonesia.
Only at the present time the maintenance of the palace buildings was entrusted to Sri Paduka Paku
Buwono XII, while for maintenance costs money was provided from civilians provided by the
government. We need to emphasize that this does not reduce the power of the mayor of Surakarta to
carry out government actions in the area, because in addition to the aforementioned basic reasons the
buildings and lands are located in the area of the Surakarta city.
The Local Government of Surakarta City states that based on the provisions of Dictum IV letter A of
the UUPA, the royal rights of Surakarta over the Kasunanan land, which consists of the Domein Rijks Surakarta
(DRS), Domein Royal Surakarta (DKS), and Sunan Grond (SG), are removed and transferred to Republic of
Indonesia. Even if we see Government Regulation (PP) No. 224 of 1961 concerning the Implementation of Land
Distribution and Granting of Compensation, the lands which had been transferred to the state, including this, the
former of kingdom land was given in part to the interests of the government, partly to those who were directly
harmed by the abolition of royal rights to the land, and partly to be distributed to the people according to the
provisions of land reforms that are regulated according to this government regulation. What is meant by
government interests is the interests of the central government and regional governments. While what is meant
by those who are disadvantaged are those who have the right and authority over the land. Based on the PP
(Government Regulation), the former of kingdom party is obliged to get a share of former of kingdom land. In
practice, the Kasunanan Surakarta never obtained former of kingdom land as the property of the formerroyal
heirs. Moreover, Mangkunegaran which is not an former of kingdom because it was never a kingdom, its lands
were taken over without proper procedures.

5 Interview with GRA Koes Isbandiyah, daughter of PB XII, Kayonan Kasunanan Surakarta, July 30, 2018.

7
 The non-regulation of the removal of former of kingdom land into state land resulted in prolonged
conflicts in the former of Karisidenan Surakarta regarding former of kingdom land. Moreover, the unclear
criteria for former of kingdoms and former of kingdom lands have made the conflict even longer until now. This
happened in Mangkunegaran, where the Regional Government considered Mangkunegaran as former of
kingdom and all land assets and buildings of Mangkunegaran were taken over on the legal basis of Dictum IV
letter A of the UUPA. The Regional Government does not see the Dictum IV letter B of the UUPA which
requires that it be regulated with PP (Government Regulation). This is where injustice happens.
As a comparison, related to the reality of the former of kingdom land policy, the former of kingdom of
Yogyakarta, which was known as the Kasultanan Yogyakarta, was one of the descendants of the Kasultanan
Surakarta, namely the Mataram Kingdom. In Law No. 13 of 2012 concerning the Privileges of the Special
Region of Yogyakarta, with regard to the land sector in Article 32 paragraph (1) and (2) stated:
1) In carrying out the authority of the land as referred to in Article 7 paragraph (2) letters d, the
Kasultanan and the Kadipaten under this Act declared as a Legal Entity.
2) The Kasultanan as a Legal Entity is the subject of rights that have Ownership Rights over the land of
the Kasultanan.
Determination of the Kasultanan as a legal entity that can be the subject of land ownership rights will
certainly bring consequences to changes in the management of the Kasultanan's land, because previously the
relationship between the Kasultanan and land was a relationship between a government institution (public
institution / ruling institution) and the area under management so that land management by the Kasultanan at
that time was carried out in the context of carrying out government duties (local government) 6. This is very
ambiguous, even though a legal entity can obtain land with right of ownership status based on Government
Regulation No. 38 of 1963, but is the kingdom of Yogyakarta included in the criteria required by the that
regulation. This matter is not clearly stipulated in the Yogyakarta Privileges Law, whether the DIY legal entity is
the same as the Government Regulation intended.
After the former of kingdom of Yogyakarta was established as a Legal Entity that could be the subject
of land ownership rights, the relationship between the Kasultanan and the land became more private. It is
different from the former of kingdom of Surakarta which does not have special rights like Yogyakarta. For
example, the Kasultanan Yogyakarta through its land agency Panitikismo can give land rights in the form of
letters of confusion to people who need land. This means that there is dualism in land law in Yogyakarta.
Although the letter of confusion was only given to the land owned by the Kasultanan Yogyakarta, however,
according to Article 19 of the Agrarian Law, it was stated that those who could register land were the
government (BPN) not any institution or legal entity. Especially for the request for rights, based on Article 2 of
the Agrarian Law, the state with the right to control the state determines and regulates all legal actions of people
and legal entities against the earth, water and space. In this case all matters of land, requests only to the state run
by the government, namely the BPN. The DIY Law contradicts Constitution Article 28 D paragraph 1
(amendment IV) which states that "Everyone has the right to recognition, guarantee, protection and fair legal
certainty and equal treatment before the law". There is discrimination against other former of kingdoms in
Indonesia.

6 Tagor, Notaris/PPAT in Bantul Yogyakarta, August 30, 2018.

8
 Indonesia is a legal state in the form of a republic. Independence was arranged in a basic rule, namely
the UUD 1945, Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. For land, it is regulated in Article 33 paragraph 3 of
Constitution which clearly states have power over land for the welfare of its people. All things about the land
law system must be in accordance with the constitution.
With regard to the Kingdom as a customary institution because it organizes customary events that are
followed by customary law communities in its territory, Constitution in Article 18 stipulates that the Law
governing regional administrations will look at and remember the rights of origin special. Special origin rights
are areas that have an arrangement (native government) such as the Surakarta Kingdom. The provisions of
Article 18 stipulate the future of the royal region must look at its origin or history.
The buildings of the Kingdom of Surakarta and Mangkunegaran have become one of the cultural
reserves in Indonesia until now and received subsidized funds from the government to maintain the cultural
heritage assets. They do not have the power to regulate land ownership rights that support the lives of their
families and surrounding communities. For example the Colomadu sugar factory was taken by the government
arbitrarily. This is because the Regional Government and BPN think that positivism considers all belonging to
former of kingdom delete to belong to the state. Even if you look at the origin of Mangkunegaran, it is definitely
not a kingdom but get a grant from his parents, King Surakarta. Can the land grant be categorized as former of
kingdom land ? This requires a wise thought from the law enforcer. It is different from Yogyakarta which
became the special region of Yogyakarta, where the kingdom of Yogyakarta still has authority over land and
building ownership rights under Act No. 13 of 2012. From the same historical background, however, there
appears to be a difference in the rule of law given by the state to 2 (two) kingdoms which are still one
descendant of the great kingdom of Mataram. This means discrimination occurs in granting privileges to both
kingdoms.

2.2. The Former of Kingdom's Land Policy is not Fair

Article 33 paragraph (3) The Constitution states that the earth, water and natural resources contained
therein are controlled by the state for the greatest prosperity of the people. Based on Article 2 Paragraph (2) of
the Agrarian Law, it authorizes the state to:
a. Regulate and administer the use, supply, maintenance and maintenance of the earth, water and space.
b. Determine and regulate legal relations between people and the earth, water and space .
c. Determine and regulate legal relations between people and legal actions concerning the earth, water and
space.
Based on Article 33 paragraph (3) of the Constitution jo. Article 2 of the Agrarian Law, the kingdom
which has been incorporated in the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia and proclaimed itself as an
indigenous community with the King as the Customary Chairperson based on Article 18 of the Constitution and
Article 3 of the Ahrarian Law is recognized by the state. The kingdom of Surakarta as a customary institution
and Mangkunegaran with its customary law community is recognized by the state7.
Presidential Decree No. 23 of 1988 Article 1 paragraph (1) states that the land and buildings of the
Surakarta court of worship along with all its accessories contained therein belong to the Surakarta court. This

7 Interview with Mangkunegoro IX, Puro Mangkunegaran Surakarta, September 12, 2018.

9
means that the land and buildings of the kingdom, although included in cultural heritage that must be preserved,
became ulayat rights for the Kingdom of Surakarta (Kasunanan).
Based on the UUPA/Agrarian Law as the national land law, the legal subjects of land rights are
individuals or legal entities. While the Surakarta kingdom is an institution of indigenous peoples, it is not
included in the category of legal entities. If it is registered in a personal name, what can be done is only the land
of former sunan grond and petilasan8. This means that a land with DKS status (Domein Kasunanan Surakarta)
cannot be registered in its own name because the traditional institution of the former kingdom of Surakarta is
not a legal entity.
Mangkunegaran is a customary law institution and based on Article 18 and explanation of Article 18 of
the Constitution, the state recognizes the existence of customary law communities, this means recognizing
Mangkunegaran as a customary law community rather than the former of Surakarta kingdom. Whereas the
private land owned by the old agrarian rights status can be deposited in the personal name of Mangkunegoro. So
that the land and buildings of Mangkunegaran as a Cultural Heritage area are ulayat rights for the
Mangkunegaran indigenous people.
The Surakarta city government does not recognize the Surakarta and Mangkunegaran kingdoms as
customary institutions, during which the King has run as a stakeholder of cultural customs, namely Sinuhun for
Kasunanan and Mangkunegoro for Mangkunegaran. In the practice of the citizens of Surakarta and Surakarta
residents, they are still attending the Surakarta traditional cultural traditions and following the traditional rituals
held by the kingdom, such as suronan, jumenengan, kirab pusaka and other royal customs9.
Former of kingdom as a customary institution requires funding for the implementation of its customary
affairs, namely traditional ceremonies, having to pay employee salaries, sentana, and maintenance of royal
buildings and ancestral tombs, which require no small amount of money. All land and building assets outside the
palace owned by the former of kingdom and Mangkunegaran have been taken over by the government without
any compensation. This clearly violates Article 28 of the Constitution.
Objects of former of kingdom and Mangkunegaran cultural heritage consist of cultural heritage objects
and cultural heritage buildings. In the national land law, the principle of horizontal separation applies so that the
basis of rights in accordance with the use of cultural heritage objects is the basis of rights that are hereditary,
strongest and most fulfilled in the form of property rights over the cultural heritage area. So that Kasunanan and
Mangkunegaran can use their rights optimally in management, custody and similar actions towards cultural
heritage objects in the context of their use and preservation.
The former of Surakarta and Mangkunegaran kingdoms with the legal status of the cultural heritage
area and the rights to the palace land as customary rights, can propose the status of land rights for cultural
heritage buildings as Property Rights under the Agrarian Law and Government Regulation No. 38 of 1963
concerning the appointment of legal entities that can have ownership rights over land. In this context,
Kasunanan and Mangkunegaran are legal entities in the religious field (trust). Based on Article 29 paragraph 2
of the Constitution, it is stated that the State guarantees the independence of each resident to embrace his own
religion and to worship according to his religion and belief. Customs and culture are routinely carried out in the

8 Interview with Gusti Isbandriyah, Ibid.

9 Interview with Mangkunegoro IX, Puro Mangkunegaran Surakarta, September 12, 2018.

10
palace every day. Thus the Surakarta Palace and Mangkunegaran as legal entities can apply for the status of land
rights based on Government Regulation No. 38 of 1963.
Mangkunegaran, has its own land area (Mangkunegaran domain), which covers parts of Surakarta,
Karanganyar, and Wonogiri. Mangkunegaran land is owned by private Mangkunegoro and is used by local
residents in the form of rights to rent or rent as evidenced by the presence of petuk C and land ownership as
evidenced by the existence of pikukuh. Pikukuh is proof of land ownership by the people. Whereas the plots are
only evidence of rent payments on land owned by Mangkunegoro10.
Before Indonesia became independent, the names of the pikukuh and petuk holders had been registered
with the Kadaster Office. Pikukuh holders register at the Kadaster Office to confirm land ownership. Pikukuh
can be transferred or inherited to his heirs. Meanwhile, petuk C are also registered in the Kadaster Office, but
not to affirm as the owner, but to find out who the tenants of the land are concerned.
Tax returns by the court are not accepted as proof of land ownership. It was stated in the Supreme
Court Decision (Mahkamah Agung) dated 10 February 1960 number 34 / K / Sip / 1960 that, “The petuk land
tax letter is not an absolute proof, that the dispute rice field belongs to the person whose name is listed in the
petuk land tax, but the ‘petuk’ letter is only a sign of who must pay taxes from the field concerned”. Based on
the Minister of Agriculture and Agrarian Number 2 of 1962, the lands that already have proof are in the form of
petuk , and paying attention to the citizenship of the owner on September 24, 1960, the request for conversion
can be submitted to the local land office, to issue a certificate of ownership rights over land Here there is a clash
with MA Decrees with Ministerial Regulations. is only proof of payment of taxes at the time of the tax colony,
while the Minister of Land Regulation with proof of petuk can be obtained converted to the status of rights to
Ownership rights. Whereas in practice, holders of smallholders are not owners of land rights, they only rent land
and petuk as proof of land tax payments to the Dutch Colony. Regarding this research, Mangkunegaran was
given a proof of renting the land.
The process of land acquisition without release from the rightful party means that the law is not
properly enforced so that injustice arises. The law can no longer be called a law if the law is never implemented.
Therefore, the law can be called consistent if the law as something that must be implemented The 11 law can be
seen in its form through the rules of rules formulated explicitly. In the rules or regulations of the law there are
actions that must be implemented, such as the implementation of the law or the application of law in the
community.
The rule of law was created through a process of interaction between humans in their life relationships.
After the law is formed, it regulates and directs human behavior in social life where it is located. However, the
fulfillment of formal procedural aspects is not enough. Other demands are still needed so that the law deserves
to be called law, namely the substance or content aspect that guarantees that the law must not conflict with the
demands of justice12.
The kingdom of Surakarta has a large number of land assets in the form of Sunan Grond which are
spread in various places. The land belonging to this private king, should not be arbitrarily taken over by his
ownership rights. But the fact is that Sunan Grond, including the pesanggrahan and the tombs belonging to the

10 Interview with dengan Supriyanto Waluyo, abdi dalem Puro Mangkunegaran.

11 Satjipto Rahardjo, Penegakan Hukum, Suatu Tinjauan Sosiologis, Genta Publishing, Yogyakarta, 2009, pp. 1.
12 Theo Huijbers, Filsafat Hukum Dalam Lintasan Sejarah, Penerbit Kanisius, Jogyakarta, 1995, pp. 162.

11
Surakarta kingdom, have turned into densely populated settlements and have been entrusted without the
procedure for the release of rights or transfer of rights under the Agrarian Law. Goverment/BPN applies the
provisions in the Dictum IV letter A of the Agrarian Law rigidly without considering the origin of the land.
Likewise, the Mangkunegaran land assets were taken over by the regional government without permission from
Mangkunegaran. There should be good ethics from the local government of rembugan (discussion) with those
who own the land by looking at the origin of the land. In this case the Kasunanan and the Mangkunegaran party
can file a lawsuit if it turns out that ownership rights to their land are taken arbitrarily 13.
Progressive law is a law that is able to meet the needs of the nation and share in the suffering of its
people. Thus, the law will serve the interests of its people, not the other way around. The law is not in the air or
in space, but in society. Satjipto Rahardjo stabbed the law in relation to a sense of community justice, the law
considered as a means of channeling all the difficulties faced by the community, the law must function as a
solution for the community.
Based on Article 14 paragraph (1) Act No. 32 of 2004 the land service of the city of Surakarta was
carried out by the Surakarta city government. The desire of the community to obtain a certificate of ownership
cannot be accommodated in the regulation of land because it is not compatible with common interests, namely
citizens who have long occupied or have long managed the land of former of kingdoms, local governments and
former of kingdoms and Mangkunegaran. This happened because there was no regulation on implementing
regulations mandated by the Dictum IV letter B of the Agarian Law, namely Government Regulation.
In the development of a changing society, the issue of justice does go hand in hand with the changes in
society. The issue of justice that occurs in traditional societies will be different from those of developing
communities and in advanced societies, where each community with a particular social system has benchmarks
or guidelines in determining justice for its people. Therefore we find it difficult to find a formula for justice that
is universally applicable14. Law is an institution which in the process continues to become and its purpose is to
create justice.
Indonesia, the state of law, should be a country that makes people happy and for this reason a
progressive concept of justice is chosen, which is nothing but substantive justice 15. For this reason, changes are
needed so that the practice of attachment to former of kingdom land emphasizes substance, so that what is
produced is progressive justice.
In utilizing and interpreting the progressive legal paradigm, inherent with the hermeneutic approach
law, which is a method of interpreting legal texts or methods of understanding a normative text. Correct
interpretation of the text of the law must always relate to the contents (legal rules), whether express or implied
or between the sound of the law with the spirit of law. For this purpose three requirements are needed that must
be fulfilled by an interpreter / interpreter, namely: fulfilling intelligendi subtility (accuracy of understanding),
explicandi subtility (exact translation), and aplicandi subtility (application accuracy). 16

13 Interview with Sunarto, Panitera Bagian Perdata Pengadilan Negeri Surakarta

14 Esmi Warassih, Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Dalam Mewujudkan Tujuan Hukum (Proses Penegakan Hukum dan
Persoalan Keadilan), Pidato Inauguration of Professor of Undip Law Faculty, Badan Penerbit Universitas Diponegoro,
Semarang, 2001, pp. 14
15 Satjipto Rahardjo, Membedah Hukum Progresif, Penerbit Buku Kompas, Jakarta, 2006, pp. 274.
16 Jazim Hamidi, Hermeneutika Hukum, Teori Penemuan Hukum Baru Dengan Interpretasi Teks, UII Press, Yogyakarta,
2005, pp. 48.

12
 Paul Sholten stated that the law was in law, but it still had to be found. Contains meaning there must be
interpretation. This is the urgency of legal hermeneutics in determining the criteria for former of kingdom land
seen from the origin of the compensation received by landowners if there is maximum excess land for
agricultural land. In this case, it means that the government (BPN) must implement formal juridical law based
on land legislation and enforce justice based on the Constitution and Pancasila (National Principle).
In a broader context, as the basis of the state, Pancasila contains strong juridical meaning as a basic
norm (grundnorm), where various hierarchically arranged laws and regulations must come from it. Therefore,
Pancasila must be used as a receptor in which there are basic values, frameworks, orientations and ideals by
state administrators and society in law. While as a state ideology, Pancasila is a value system adopted by a group
of people in which there are basic ideals in social, political, legal, economic and cultural life. In this sense, the
Pancasila is placed as a weltanschauung or outlook on life.17
In this context, the provisions in Dictum IV Letter A of the Agrarian Law concerning expropriation or
abolition of former of kingdom land into state land constitute the reality that in its formation it has taken the
source of living values in the Indonesian people who do not want feudalism in the kingdom government. It's just
that the procedure for deletion and compensation to be received by former of kingdoms has not been regulated
in a Government Regulation mandated in the Dictum IV letter B of the Agrarian Law, so that it raises doubts in
implementing it in several research locations, so that the reality of land ownership former of kingdoms have
attached letters of release of land rights from former of kingdom parties and some have not used the letter. For
this reason, so that the applicable law is truly in accordance with a sense of justice and can create an atmosphere
of peace and order in society, the law must provide legal certainty, benefit and justice by making implementing
regulations in the form of Government Regulations.
The problem that occurred related to the policy of the former of kingdom land in the former of
Karesidenan Surakarta, BPN had been shackled by the positivist paradigm. This is very confining in realizing
real justice. Encouragement is needed so that BPN can get out of the confines of the rules. BPN must be able to
see which laws that are manifested in the regulations contain the values of justice and which laws do not contain
the values of justice. If facing a law that is manifested in a regulation that does not contain the values of justice,
then this is where the BPN needs to have the courage to get out of the sound of the text of legislation in order to
realize real justice. Law does not exist for the law itself, but for humans. Thus, the purpose of the law is to
deliver people to a life that is just, prosperous and makes people happy.
The dictum IV letter A Agrarian Law should not only be a black-and-white formula, but the law should
be seen as a phenomenon that can be observed in people's lives seen from the origins of the former kingdom. In
this case, it means that the law is influenced by non-legal factors such as the values, attitudes and views of the
community, which are called legal cultures.
Making good regulations without seeing the legal culture of society consequently can lead to prolonged
conflicts and disputes. The dispute regarding former kingdom land should be settled as early as possible by
paying attention to the legal culture in the community.
The new construction of former of kingdom-based justice-based land policy is nothing but to realize
substantial justice. At the practical level, when progressive law is the basis for the application of law to humans,

17 As'ad Said Ali, Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Sarana Hukum Sebagai Pengaman Ideologi Dan Dasar Negara, Speech
Awarding Doctor Honoris Causa Degree in Law, Diponegoro University Semarang, February 11, 2012, pp. 4-5

13
the entire process of working the law must be verifiable into the factors of justice, welfare, concern for the
people and others, all of which have been contained in the values of Pancasila values.
Regarding the function of law as an integrator of interests, Mochtar Kusumaatmadja 18, called it as a
toll of social control, which means that law is a tool to create public order. In other words, the law maintains
what has become something accepted in society. Policies related to former kingdom land that are in force today
should not only be a black-and-white formula, but the law should be seen as a phenomenon that can be observed
in people's lives. In this case, it means that the law is influenced by non-legal factors such as the values,
attitudes and views of the community, which are called legal cultures.
Parsons's theory of roles is to understand the legal position in society, where the system of cultural
patterns is one of the centers or supporters of actions taken by the community. Law can be seen as a force that
works normatively by explicitly determining what roles are asked by the citizens to be carried out. Feedback
(feedback) on the request, then the community manifests it in the form of behavior19.
In reality in social life, often the application of the law is not effective. As expressed by Syamsuddin
Pasamai the20 issue of legal effectiveness has a very close relationship with the issue of the implementation,
implementation and enforcement of law in the community in order to achieve legal objectives.
According to Soerjono Soekanto 21is effective is the extent to which a group can achieve its objectives.
Law can be said to be effective if there is a positive legal effect, at that time the law reaches its goal in guiding
or changing human behavior so that it becomes legal behavior.
In the framework of applying law in society, sometimes the law will clash with social values. Conflict
between the government, the former of kingdom and citizens related to former of kingdom land, it can be said
that the legal function in this case Agrarian Law as a means of preventing conflict cannot be effective due to the
absence of implementing regulations in the form of Government Regulations stipulated by the Agrarian Law. If
this is said to be very dependent on the attitude of the government (BPN) involved in implementing the
effectiveness of the law.
When the provisions in Dictum IV letter B of the Agrarian Law relating to former of kingdom land are
stipulated by the authorized institutions (DPR/House of Representatives and the President), it is expected to be
implemented properly in the community. Thus there is an agenda of interest with the promulgation of the
Agrarian Law, with the hope that it will be adhered to by the community. In certain cases, there are still frequent
violations of the retention procedures for former kingdom land based on the Agrarian Law relating to former
kingdom land. These violations indicate that there are other forces that influence a person acting, besides the
power of law.
The village head or lurah as the person who plays an important role regarding the origin of the land
does not have sufficient knowledge about the contents of the Agrarian Law, especially regarding the land of the
former of kingdom and the dictum IV of the Agrarian Law. Thus, it is very difficult to expect the public to know,
and even act in accordance with the contents of the law. In such conditions, people will still behave according to

18 Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, dalam Yusriadi, Industrialisasi & Perubahan Fungsi Sosial Hak Milik Atas Tanah, Genta
Publising, Yogyakarta, 2010, pp. 134.
19 Satjipto Rahardjo, Pemanfaatan Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial Bagi Pengembangan Ilmu Hukum, Alumni, Bandung, 1977, pp. 29-30.
20 Syamsuddin Pasamai, Sosiologi dan Sosiologi Hukum, Umitoha Uhkuwah Grafika, Makasar, 2011.
21 Soerjono Soekanto, Efektivitas Hukum dan Penerapan Sanksi, CV. Ramadja Karya, Bandung, 1988, pp. 80.

14
the views and values that already exist in people. Therefore, communication law is one of the requirements to be
met in order to apply the law effectively.
The policy on former of kingdom land has been regulated in Diktum IV letter A Agrarian Law
concerning former kingdom land, but in practice it has not been implemented properly so that former kingdoms
and residents who have long occupied former of kingdom land have not felt justice. This proves that the
provisions stipulated in the dictum IV letter A of the Agrarian Law concerning former of kingdom land have not
reflected substantial justice.
BPN interprets the provisions in the dictum IV letter A of the Agrarian Law regarding the former of
kingdom land in a narrow manner, namely by issuing policies that do not consider the historical aspects, social
aspects and cultural aspects of society. Therefore policies that govern the land of former of kingdoms need to be
tested with the values contained in Pancasila, especially the fifth principle of Pancasila concerning social justice
for all the people of Indonesia.

1.1. Former of kingdom Land Policy Reconstruction in Indonesia

After discussing various problems as described above, new constructs can be conveyed to improve
mechanisms and procedures to maintain consistency in the interpretation of former of kingdom land policies
based on social justice values.
The complexity of the problems surrounding the former of kingdom land policy is due to legal,
political and socio-cultural factors.
1.1.1. Legal Factors (Substantial)
In relation to the law, justice is one of the most prominent issues. In essence, laws and regulations must
be fair to every legal community even though the reality is not always the case.
As John Rawls said, justice is a balance, harmony, and comparability between personal interests and
public interests, so in relation to the policy of just royal land that is just, the principles of justice must be
applied, so that the former of kingdoms and citizens who have settled for a long time former of kingdom land
was not reluctant to surrender their land and they also realized that they were part of the country and needed to
support development programs for the improvement of the people's welfare.
Systematically, examine the dictum IV letter A of the Agrarian Law related to the former of kingdom
land both in correspondence and coherence. Correspondence is testing the dictum IV letter A of the Agrarian
Law with Pancasila and the The Constitution.
1.1.1. Institutional Factors (Structural)
Another fact that is also interesting to study is the experience of citizens when dealing with BPN. They
feel the obstacles that technically BPN is slow in making decisions on land registration. Often the process of
land registration without notice to landowners, it’s the former of kingdom, resulting in a long conflict and often
leads to court.
The difference in the interpretation of the criteria of kingdoms, former of kingdoms and former
kingdom of lands between the government, former of kingdoms and citizens has made conflict prolonged and
tapering which has caused disputes to the realm of the Court. What often happens is that the local government
and the local BPN in processing the engagement of former of kingdom lands were carried out without notice to

15
the former of kingdom22. According to the authors, the government and former of kingdom parties sat together
and taken one perception, so any differences in understanding regarding the former of kingdom's land must be
quickly resolved. Every decision making first hears the testimony of historians, land law experts, and refers to
the Supreme Court jurisprudence in dealing with the same problem.
In connection with structural factors, attitudes and behavior of government institutions (BPN) in
implementing the provisions of dictum IV letter A Agrarian Law related to former of kingdom land only
oriented to local governments that need land, do not prioritize the life of former of kingdoms and residents who
occupy the former of kingdom land if rights to the land were removed.
The law enforcer (BPN) must eliminate the legal interpretation of positivism and interpret the dictum
IV letter A Agrarian Law concerning former of kingdom land by looking at the historical, economic, social and
cultural aspects of society. The BPN must also be transparent in conveying information regarding the origin or
history of former of kingdom land before granting requests for land rights to both the local government and
residents, so that conflicts and polemics can be avoided.
The policy of former of kingdom land must consider the historical, economic, social and cultural
aspects of society, because it involves individual and social rights, such as the right to life, property rights, the
right to a more decent life. This is in line with the fundamental values embodied in the ideology and philosophy
of the state of Pancasila.
The paradigm shift in legal implementers in this case is mostly from the Land Agency and Government
Institutions / BPN that prioritize superior orders to be transformed into a paradigm that is more concerned with
the interests of the community. It is assumed that the change will open the door for a review of all relevant laws
and regulations relating to the land of former kingdom. Therefore, it is possible to form new theories to realize
policies that better protect people's rights to land. This is a change from a capitalistic and repressive law to being
democratic, respecting people's rights.
1.1.2. Cultural Factors
Cultural factors that place socio-cultural institutions and mechanisms that grow and develop in society
are alternative instruments for resolving conflicts related to former of kingdom land. Therefore, a complete and
comprehensive understanding of the cultural existence of a community is needed as a party in conflict with the
state. Socio-cultural understanding will ensure the position of the community as the main subject of socio-
cultural conflict resolution actors.
The takeover of land abolished into state land arbitrarily by the state, namely without proper and fair
compensation, caused tremendous turmoil among the former of kingdom and surrounding communities.
In Article 1 Paragraph (3) stated: "The State of Indonesia is a legal state." This statement implies an
acknowledgment of the principle of the rule of law and the constitution, the explicit division of power, there is
an acknowledgment of respecting human rights, the principle of justice that states all before the law, and
guarantees of justice for each person.
Problems related to the former of kingdom land in Indonesia, are essentially caused by the positivism-
legalistic interpretation of decision makers, in this case the BPN as the executor of registering former of
kingdom land.
Regarding the policy related to former of kingdom land, a policy taken must consider what legal

22 Interview with Sunarto, clerk of the PN Surakarta civil section, in Agustus 29, 2018.

16
products will be produced. If further detailed, lawmakers must be able to formulate the right legal form, purpose
of making, and what variables can change the applicable law. Thus, the resulting legal products are not
authoritarian, but are implementative, realistic, and contain values of justice and ethics of nation and state
(principle of good governance).23
Ideal legal certainty is rooted in legal formalism. Legal formalism does not recognize the soul or legal
substance. As a result, there is a tendency to interpret the law as a closed system. The way this interpretation
considers other social factors is irrelevant. In handling and resolving conflicts related to land acquisition for the
public interest, the government (BPN) more often determines decisions based on legal factors.
For this reason, based on these matters, there are a number of things that need attention regarding the
policy of former of kingdom land in Indonesia, including:
1) Shackles of Positivism Paradigm
Construction of experience and description of resolving former of kingdom land
conflicts has been oriented to procedural justice, not substantial justice. Here the government
(BPN) implements the Policy in the Dictum. The four letters A Agrarian Law only reads the text
partially, that is, it does not consider the values of social justice mandated by the Constitution
and Pancasila as the life guide of the Indonesian nation, for example not looking at history,
culture and evidence of ownership old land of Agrarian Law.
The role of the state in the realm of positive legal order is very large, so what we
actually call the law in practice is only the law produced by the state. While many other non-
state normative arrangements are outside the scope of legal definitions. In this case, Satjipto
Rahardjo stated that the legal position of the state was very central, while other legal positions
were only the periphery.24
The law or the whole legislation according to the positivism paradigm is something that
contains a complete law, so that BPN applies the provisions of the law mechanically and linearly
to resolve community problems, according to the sound of the law.
The paradigm of positivism is very dominating in the practice of land ownership that is
being requested by citizens and local governments over former of kingdom land.
2) The Urgency of the Principle of Justice in Policies Regarding the Former of Kingdom Land
The principle of law is the basic rule underlying the concrete rules and implementation of
the law. Concrete regulations (such as the Act) may not conflict with legal principles. If there is
a conflict in a legal system, then the legal principle will appear to overcome the conflict. Thus
each law has or contains principles, not only one principle but there are several principles.
Likewise in the Agrarian Law there are known several principles including the principle
of recognition of customary rights (Article 3 of the Agrarian Law). This principle is important
because it shows the existence of state recognition of indigenous peoples who are the origins of
the kingdom so that they have the opportunity to live a better life. Implementation of this
principle, if it is associated with the right to obtain protection and legal certainty over the land it

23 Bernhard Limbong, Konflik Pertanahan, Pustaka Margareta, Jakarta, 2012, pp. 276.
24 Satjipto Rahardjo, Lapisan lapisan Dalam Studi Hukum, Bayumedia Publishing, Malang,2009, pp, 6. Compare it with
Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto, Hukum Dalam Masyarakat : Perkembangan dan Masalah, Bayumedia Publishing, Malang,
2008, pp. 120-121

17
 owns. Kingdom land policy must contain the values of justice by considering the values that
exist in society. The values that exist in the community both from the economic aspect to fulfill
the life of the landowner and the socio-cultural aspects for the life of the community in carrying
out local customs, where the kingdom as a symbol of custom and the king as the customary
chair for them.
As a consequence of the use of the principle of recognition of customary rights, the
Government in taking over former of kingdom lands should pay attention to this principle, so
that the implementation of former kingdom land policies could be effective and accepted by the
kingdom and affected communities as a result of the land acquisition.
The policy governing the control of the customary land of the former of kingdom in
Surakarta City is regulated in the IV dictum of Agrarian Law and in the second section
concerning Provisions for the Conversion of Article I to Article IX of the Agrarian Law, where
the land can be converted into Property Rights. However, in practice there are still many
obstacles in the process of the status of land becoming Hak Milik (right of ownership). Referring
to Act No. 11 of 2010 concerning Cultural Heritage, that the Heritage Area can only be obtained
by the State and the Community of Customary Law. So in addition to the State and Society of
Customary Law, the Kingdom Area cannot be owned and or controlled. The tenure status is the
status of Ulayat Rights land, this is because it fulfills the elements as Customary Law
Community.
So that land tenure carried out for generations in the Kingdom of Surakarta is justified
according to Act number 11 of 2010 concerning Cultural Heritage. However, juridical evidence
in the form of stipulation of the kingdom of Surakarta as a customary law society for its
customary rights does not yet exist.

3) Progressive Legal Relevance in Creating Substantive Justice

Regarding royal lands and former of kingdoms, in the Dictum IV of the Agrarian Law
determines that :
a. Rights and authority over the earth and water from swapraja (kingdom) or former of
swapraja (former of kingdom) are still at the time of the enactment of this Act, remove
and transfer to the State.
b. Matters pertaining to the provisions in letter A above are further regulated by
Government Regulation.
The dictum IV of the Agrarian Law stipulates that the royal land and former of
kingdom land became state land since the birth of the Agrarian Law in 1960. Therefore
ownership of these lands turned to state control based on Article 2 of the Agrarian Law with the
principle of State control over land.
Provisions regarding the royal land and former kingdom land regulated in the fourth
dictum of the Agrarian Law do contain national values because of the nationalization, where in a
unitary republic the state is not in the form of a kingdom (monarchy). Therefore all royal lands
and land of former of kingdoms controlled by the invaders automatically belonged to the unitary
state of the Republic. However, in reality, the royal land and the land of former of kingdom were

18
 many, which were the king's private land, not royal land. The private land owned by the King is
recognized by the Agrarian Law to be converted into one of the land rights according to the
Agrarian Law. Moreover, based on the Constitution, as stated in Article 28 H, private property
must not be taken arbitrarily. Do not reflect BPN and the Government Regional do not reflect
justice for citizens who are entitled to the land.
The first verification, in the form of the question whether the law has realized justice,
certainly has a broad dimension, because in the operation of the law, the fulfillment of legal procedures
does not necessarily guarantee the realization of justice. If the BPN only reads text that is in the Dictum
IV letter A of the Agrarian Law, BPN should read more into the meaning of the text by interpreting the
dictum IV letter A of the Agrarian Law, so that other meanings will be obtained behind the text. This is
where the BPN has to be brave to get out of interpreting the wrong text.
The dispute over former of kingdom lands requires a policy reconstruction based on the
mutual interests of the parties, namely the existence of an empire that can provide economic benefits
for both the royal heirs and the community. The reconstruction of the former of kingdom land policy
was accommodated in the first two things, the meaning of the kingdom as a traditional institution, a
cultural stakeholder led by the King where the former of kingdom land as a cultural heritage area was
communal rights. As a logical consequence of the construction of the policy are:
1. Conducted the determination of former kingdom as a religious legal entity so that it becomes
the subject of ownership rights.
2. Revoke overlapping rules
In this context, a progressive-minded BPN is needed that is able to translate and interpret
which laws need to be implemented to realize substantial justice and where the law actually contains
justice. This means that there must be no excessive action to avoid misuse of great authority in carrying
out rule breaking.
In the end it was stated that, the ideal new construction of the concept of justice in the policy
of former of kingdom land based on progressive law is nothing but to realize substantial justice. The
whole process of the operation of the legal implementation instrument (BPN) must be verifiable into
the factors of justice, welfare, concern for the people and others, all of which have been contained in
the values of Pancasila.

REFERENCES

BOOK

19
As'ad Said Ali, Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Sarana Hukum Sebagai Pengaman Ideologi Dan Dasar Negara,
Pidato Penganugerahan Gelar Doctor Honoris Causa Dalam Bidang Hukum, Universitas Diponegoro Semarang,
11 Februari 2012, pp. 4-5

Bernhard Limbong, Konflik Pertanahan, Pustaka Margareta, Jakarta, 2012, pp. 276.

Dasril Radjab, Hukum Tata Negara Indonesia, Jakarta, PT. Rineka Cipta, 2005, pp. 143-144.

Esmi Warassih, Pemberdayaan Masyarakat Dalam Mewujudkan Tujuan Hukum (Proses Penegakan Hukum dan
Persoalan Keadilan), Pidato Pengukuhan Guru Besar Fakultas Hukum Undip, Badan Penerbit Universitas
Diponegoro, Semarang, 2001, pp. 14

Hanna Willard, Bali Profile: People, Events, Circumstance (1001-1976). New York: American Universities
Field Staff. 1976, hal. 83-91.

Herman Bakir, Filsafat Hukum, Refika Aditama, Bandung, 2007, pp. 179

Jazim Hamidi, Hermeneutika Hukum, Teori Penemuan Hukum Baru Dengan Interpretasi Teks, UII Press,
Yogyakarta, 2005, pp. 48.

Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, dalam Yusriadi, Industrialisasi & Perubahan Fungsi Sosial Hak Milik Atas Tanah,
Genta Publising, Yogyakarta, 2010, hal. 134.

M. Solly Lubis, Pergeseran Garis Politik dan Perundang-undangan mengenai Pemerintahan Daerah, Bandung:
Alumni, 1983, pp. 91.

Satjipto Rahardjo, Lapisan lapisan Dalam Studi Hukum, Bayumedia Publishing, Malang, 2009, pp, 6.

Satjipto Rahardjo, Membedah Hukum Progresif, Penerbit Buku Kompas, Jakarta, 2006, pp. 274.

Satjipto Rahardjo, Penegakan Hukum, Suatu Tinjauan Sosiologis, Genta Publishing, Yogyakarta, 2009, pp. 1

Satjipto Rahardjo, Pemanfaatan Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial Bagi Pengembangan Ilmu Hukum, Alumni, Bandung, 1977,
pp. 29-30.

Soegianto Sastrodiwiryo, I Gusti Anglurah Panji Sakti Raja Buleleng 1599-1680 , Denpasar, CV. Kayumas
Agung, 1994, pp. 94.

Soerjono Soekanto, Efektivitas Hukum dan Penerapan Sanksi, CV. Ramadja Karya, Bandung, 1988, pp. 80.

Sugeng Istanto, Ringkasan Laporan Penelitian Tanah Kerajaan Surakarta, Hasil Kerjasama Yayasan
Pawiyatan Kabudayaan Kerajaan Surakarta dan Universitas Atmajaya Yogyakarta, 2002, Tidak diterbitkan, pp.
2 – 5.

Soetandyo Wignjosoebroto, Hukum Dalam Masyarakat : Perkembangan dan Masalah, Bayumedia Publishing,
Malang, 2008, pp. 120-121

Syamsuddin Pasamai, Sosiologi dan Sosiologi Hukum, Umitoha Uhkuwah Grafika, Makasar, 2011.

Theo Huijbers, Filsafat Hukum Dalam Lintasan Sejarah, Penerbit Kanisius, Jogyakarta, 1995, pp. 162

Widodo Dwi Putro, Kritik Terhadap Paradigma Positivisme Hukum, Genta Publishing, Yogyakarta, 2011, pp.
233

20
Yusriyadi, "Paradigma sosiologis dan implikasinya terhadap perkembangan ilmu hukum dan penegakan hukum
di Indonesia" Pidato pengukuhan Guru Besar FH Undip, Semarang, 18 Pebruari 2006, pp. 11 & 16.

21