Rancapinang Residents Await Judicial Verdict in Land Dispute Case

The lawsuit filed by residents of Rancapinang against the Land Office of Pandeglang Regency and the Ministry of Defense (Kemhan) at the Serang Administrative Court (PTUN Serang) is nearing its final stage, with a verdict scheduled for August 6th. Various civil society organizations are urging the judges to deliver a fair and just ruling for the Rancapinang residents. The case originated when the Pandeglang Land Office issued a usage rights certificate (SHP) to the Ministry of Defense for a vast area of 3,646,390 square meters (approximately 364 hectares) of land belonging to the residents. A Territorial Development Battalion (BTP) is currently situated on this land. The Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA) is pressing for the judges to consider the facts presented during the trial, which highlight discrepancies between the statements of the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Land/National Land Agency (ATR/BPN) and the Ministry of Defense regarding the land acquisition process. During the PTUN hearing on June 3, 2026, conflicting explanations emerged. The Ministry of Defense claimed the land in Rancapinang was acquired through an asset exchange mechanism, or "ruislag," involving PT Mandiri Nusa Graha Perkasa (MNGP). According to the Ministry's argument, MNGP applied to Kodam III/Siliwangi to exchange its assets in Rancapinang with Ministry of Defense assets in Maja, Lebak Regency, a process that occurred around 2005. In contrast, the National Land Agency stated that the Ministry of Defense obtained the land through a community rights release process, evidenced by a rights release letter. The BPN's explanation did not base the land acquisition on the "ruislag" mechanism involving MNGP. Dewi Kartika, Secretary General of KPA, stated that if procedural defects are proven, the SHP should be invalidated as it infringes upon the constitutional rights of the community. She added that the Rancapinang issue is not merely an administrative land dispute but highlights procedural flaws in the land acquisition process. Four fact witnesses for the plaintiffs were presented during the trial at the State Administrative High Court. Source: Mongabay Indonesia