The Urban War That Will Never End
By: Le Citoyen P C
Tags: Human Rights, Lc Society, Eviction, Indonesia, Jakarta

The Urban War That Will Never End

Examining Forced Evictions in Indonesia through the lens of Darwinism, Development, Law, and Practice.

Rifqi Thoriq for LC Society

The commune of Kebun Sayur, Ciracas; one of the latest victims of the so-called Urban Warfare. (Photo by Rizky Bayuputra)

The rapid pace of urban development always comes with a problematic question: Where can we find more space? More and more people are coming into the metropolitan area, tempted by the ‘exciting prospect’ it has to offer and of the problems that behold themselves, one of the most pronounced come in the form of space. Coming along with them are basic needs such as housing, health centres, transportation, and other needs that require tremendous space to be built upon. These needs force urban developers to expand their cities, abandoning their original urban plan, and along with it ‘kicked out’ some of it’s original residents. This ‘kicking out’ are commonly known as eviction, in some case using ‘force’.

It has always been a thought split by dilemma, forcing people to move out from their home for the sake of development. It seems that development always comes with the harsh reality that some people must suffer so the ‘rest of us’ can grow. However, is it truly the only way? Is it true that eviction is some form of survival of the fittest in urban areas? Can we actually go through with development without the cost of undermining humanity?

One of the slums and favelas left in Jakarta, Kebun Sayar Ciracas stands as one of the many proofs of Social Darwinism. (Photo: Rizky Bayuputra)

Social Darwinism

Perhaps one of the most controversial idea that came out during the 19th century is Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. Darwin stated that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. In that sense, the species who are weak and unable to adapt through the ever changing hazardous environment will perish, while those who are strong and willing to adapt, will survive.[1]

Social Darwinism is a way of thinking that applies the concept of Darwin’s natural selection to human society. The social darwinists believed that the process of natural selection, acting on variations in the population, would result in the survival of the best competitors and in continuing improvement in the population.[2] The theory itself was a popular justification of laissez faire capitalism, where class stratification was justified on the basis of ‘natural’ inequalities among individuals, for the control of property was said to be a correlation of superior and inherent moral attributes such as industriousness, temperance, and frugality.

How does it apply to forced eviction? As mentioned earlier, a society will always have unlimited needs while resources remain limited. These resources will be given to those who values them the most as they could make the most benefit or output out of them; this notion being one of the many views on how to solve economic problems. In this case, land is a very valuable resource. It is the primary factor of production, it is immovable, its supply is inelastic, and it will last forever. Who can make the best outcome from land? Those who can turn it into a more valuable asset that could improve the overall quality of a society, such as roads, airports, hospitals, apartments, offices, etc.; those who cannot turn the land into a valuable asset will eventually be left defeated. This so-called ‘natural selection’ in a society is deemed social darwinism.

At first glance, it is logical to give a land to those who can make the most benefit out of it. For an example, let us take a look at Kulon Progo eviction case. If you were given a choice between building an airport that could increase your area’s earnings or preserving a slum and a traditional farm on that same land without knowing the social background of those who inhabited the saidland, you would probably choose the former. It is the most beneficial option, however, we cannot turn a blind eye towards the social, cultural, historical aspect of a society and of course human rights values when we discuss development.

‘Eviction is for the sake of the development’. That phrase are often said by local officials and/or urban developer. But the nature of development itself should never alienate the values of human rights. In fact, development is one of the human rights, where everyone deserves to contribute and benefit from development. (Photo by: Rizky Bayuputra)

Human rights-based approach to development.

We are most familiar with the phrase ‘eviction is for the sake of development’. That phrase is often said by local officials and/or urban developers. But the nature of development itself should never alienate the values of human rights. In fact, development is one among many human rights, where everyone deserves to contribute and benefit from development.

The right to development is one of the fundamental rights that can be traced from the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the UN Declaration on the Right of Development (A/RES/4/128). It is explicitly stated in the UN Declaration on the Right of Development that the right to development is an inalienable human right by the virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, cultural, and social development (Article 1.1). It is also stated further in Article 2 that the human person is the central subject of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of the right to development.

These documents, also ratified in Indonesia, act as principles and guidelines on integrating basic human rights values into development.[3] By placing humans as the core of development, we are inclined to calculate the lives of those who will be affected by a development. We approach developments with the values of human rights, not just with needs.

Forced evictions may bring progress by building facilities, but does it bring equal development especially to those who are evicted? Development is a right for everyone, and everyone should be able to participate and benefit from it, especially those who live in the community where the development is being made. It is not rare that forced eviction only plunge those who are getting evicted deep into poverty. By forcing the original residents to move out without equal compensation, we are also cutting their social, economic, and cultural access, entrapping them inside the vicious structural cycle of poverty.

How The Law Sees Forced Eviction.

Philosophically, the Fourth Amendment to the 1945 Constitution of Indonesia stated in Article 33.3 that the lands, the waters, and the natural resources within shall be under authority of the State and shall be used to the greatest benefit of the People of Indonesia. It is important to note that our founding fathers used the term ‘under authority of the State’ instead of ‘owned by the State’.[4] The relationship between the people of Indonesia and the land is eternal and will never be submitted to the State, whereas the State itself is merely an organization of the power of the entire Indonesian and a vessel to carry out the will of Indonesian.[5] It is further stated in the Law No. 5/1960 (‘Agraria Act’) on article 1.2 that the land, waters, space, and all resource within are Indonesian’s, not the state; the Agraria Act of 1960 itself serves as the baseline of any and every regulation that gives rules regarding to, but not limited to, affairs of land within the country.

The Agraria Act repealed the colonial law Agrarische Wet and Agrarische Besluit that contained the right of the State to own a land named Domein Verklaring. By this right, it is lawful for the state to forcefully evict someone from their home/land if they can’t prove their ownership of the land (known as eigendom at the time). Domein Verklaring is an instrument used by the Dutch Colonial Administration to take away ‘unregistered’ native-owned land, as many natives do not even understand what the regulations in place were and lived in their own ‘Adat’ way of life, let alone the concept of land ownership regulated within the two aforementioned laws. The drafters of the Agraria Act, with an anti-colonial and considerably socialist fervor at the time, decided to repeal Agrarische Wet and Agrarische Besluit since it did not represent the best interest of the Indonesian people at the time, which was to establish themselves their own national, post-colonial identity of a free nation. The two laws were and often are still seen as instruments of colonialism, reflecting to Indonesia’s chained, dark, and oppressed past.

However, a new law was enacted (post-Agraria Act) that authorized the state to evict persons from their home/land if they cannot prove their ownership of the land (basically it’s just Domein Verklaring all over again, but this time the ownership proof is a land title). This law is the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law PRP No. 51/1960 concerning Prohibition of Unauthorized Use of A Land. This law serves as the basic regulation of forced eviction in Indonesia. In Article 3.1. of Law PRP No. 51/1960, it is stated that local officials could take whatever measures to settle the unauthorized use of a land in their respective regions.

The ownership proof of a land is a title, as stated in Article 4.1 of Government Regulatory in lieu of Law No. 24/199 concerning Land Registration. It is a well known fact, however, despite the progression of time, that many Indonesians understand what a land title is, especially those who still live in tribal communities (commonly known as ‘Masyarakat Hukum Adat’).

A land title is the legal proof of ownership over land, especially a freehold title (‘Hak Milik’) which is the strongest proof of ownership. However, if the State wishes to acquire a land for the use of public development that has a title on it, it is regulated on the Law No. 2/2012 regarding Land Procurement for Public Utilities (‘The Land Procurement for Public Utilities Act’). It is stated inArticle 27.3 that a land procurement must follow the following procedure: Identification of the land’s ownership, assessment of compensation, discussing the compensation with the land’s owner, and giving the compensation itself.

The Land Procurement for Public Utilities Act is commonly held as a ‘good’ legal product. It encourages both sides of Land Procurement/Eviction to discuss the equal compensation they should give/receive from land procurement. However, it is not rare that the procedures as mentioned on Article 27.3 of the Act violated, bringing injustices to the party whose land was taken.

To understand further how the law practically works in forced eviction cases, we have to dive into the cases itself. Here are some of the most well-known forced eviction cases, summarized just for you.

Farmers v. PT. Angkasa Pura I: The Case of Kulon Progo.

Photo by Tommy Apriando from Mongabay

Since 2012, PT Angkasa Pura I, a state-owned enterprise dealing in airport services , planned to build an airport on a 645 hectare land in the district of Temon, Kulon Progo, The Province of Yogyakarta. The inhabitants of the land, originally 2700 family[6], have their own freehold titles of ownership, which means PT. Angkasa Pura, as a state-owned enterprise, must follow the procedure stated in The Land Procurement Act to procure the land for ‘public utilities’.

However, several reports indicated that PT Angkasa Pura did not follow the said procedure. An activist from the local People’s Commune Against Eviction (Paguyuban Warga Penolak Penggusuran) claimed that there was never any measurement and assessment of the land done by PT. Angkasa Pura I.[7] Locals also claimed that they have never met any representative from the company to discuss compensation regarding their land.[8] Some intimidation acts were also done to threaten the inhabitants of Kulon Progo to move out, such as cutting out access to electricity for the locals,[9] using a squad of police at the eviction, bringing tractors and bulldozers while some locals are still in the house, etc. There were also claims that PT Angkasa Pura I did not follow the standard environmental analysis (AMDAL) of the land, leaving the airport construction more controversial.[10]

At the end, the farmers lost their home and land to PT. Angkasa Pura I. In July 2018, the final act of demolition to clear the land for the construction was done.[11] The resistance worked hard, but it was not enough. In the end, the weak lost and those who possessed more resources won, social darwinism at its finest.

The Residents of Bukit Duri v. The Government of The Province of DKI Jakarta.

Photo by Angga Bhagya Nugra

The flood during raining season in Jakarta has always been one of Jakarta’s major problem. Some argue that the solution is to normalize the rivers that run through Jakarta. Some of those rivers include the Ciliwung River, and the Government of Jakarta Capital District, through Gubernatorial Decision №2181/2014 decides to normalize it, along the way demolishing settlements on the riverbank. Among those settlements were Bukit Duri Settlement, located in South Jakarta.

The residents of Bukit Duri lived in that settlement for more than 20 years, which made them rightful owners of the land (It is called Rechtsverwerking[12]). However, the Government of DKI Jakarta labelled them as ‘wild’ residents for having no land titles on their land and proceeded with the plan to normalise Ciliwung River, along with the demolishing of the entire settlements. The residents went on to sue the Government through two different procedures, one through a private procedure by a class action lawsuit at the South Jakarta District Court, while the other procedure is by suing the letter of notice of Bukit Duri’s Eviction Issued by Jakarta Capital District Municipal Police.

The Administrative Court of Jakarta ruled out that the Letter of Notice is indeed unlawful, while the South Jakarta District Court ruled that the local government has committed unlawful conduct by evicting the residents of Bukit Duri with an unlawful Letter of Notice, as stated in Article 1365 of The Civil Code (very similar to the common law tortious act), towards the Residents of Bukit Duri, thus winning the plaintiffs of this case. The Government of Jakarta Capital District is set to pay the residents (via the class act) an amount of 18.6 billion Indonesian Rupiah (equivalent to 1.2 million US Dollars).[13] It is one rare example where the people actually won.

Examining this case, the concept of social darwinism fits very well. The residents of Bukit Duri riverbank settlements must perish so that Jakarta’s collective quality of life may improve.

Farmers of Kebun Sayur v. Perum PPD.

This case is still ongoing by the time this article was published. State Enterprise Perum PPD (Stands for Perusahaan Umum Pengangkutan Penumpang Djakarta) planned to build a light rail transit (LRT) as an alternative method of transportation in Jakarta in order to decrease the mass of private transportation, a major cause to Jakarta’s traffic problem. They also work together with PT Adhikarya (also a state enterprise, dealing with engineering and construction) to build an LRT-based apartment named ‘LRT City.’ One of the area they intend to build the apartment upon is at Kebun Sayur, located at Ciracas, East Jakarta. The problem is that the land is still being inhabited by a community, thus arose a land dispute.

The resident of Kebun Sayur Ciracas has been living on that land since the 1980s, thus qualifying them to legally acquire the land through rechtsverwerking. However, they did not do anything to fully obtain the land legally, leaving them with no land titles. Perum PPD on the other hand claimed that they rightfully owned the land as it was stated on Government Regulation in Lieu of Law №42/2003 regarding The Increase of PPD’s Capital.

The battle of Kebun Sayur, Ciracas is a story filled with various acts of intimidation. In July 2018, a group of Ambonese thugs come to Kebun Sayur Ciracas, fully armed with machetes, as a form of intimidation so that the residents of Kebun Sayur will flee. The local’s farm, their main source of work, was demolished by Perum PPD in 2017, leaving them with no main occupation. Local’s access to clean water and electricity was also cut out. The residents also fight back, however, forming protests in KOMNAS HAM, The National Palace of Indonesia, and working with Jakarta Legal Aid Institute and the students of Universitas Indonesia’s Faculty of Law to defend their land.

Conclusion

At the end of this article, it is clear that cases of forced eviction arise from a basic conflict of interest: Survival of The Fittest. However, I would like to believe that Darwinism could only be applied in biological dimensions. We are human with social dimensions, and I would rather believe that as a human being, we need to put the values of human rights as equal as development, if not higher, so that development could bring the greatest benefit to us all. Take a look at the three aforementioned examples, do forced evictions from those cases bring development to all? Does Yogyakarta, an area that still has a functioning airport (which could be revitalised) really need another airport? Would the Bukit Duri eviction decrease Jakarta’s flooding rate? Can LRT City apartments be accessed by us all or only by the elites? Is forced eviction the only way to progress our urban society?

Only you, the citizens, are capable to answer these questions.

RT.