Jakarta — The Coalition for the Protection of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights (Koalisi Kawal RUU Masyarakat Adat) conveyed the urgency and development of a formal review of the recently passed conservation law in 2024, at the Constitutional Court (MK), arguing that the legislative process violated constitutional principles and excluded Indigenous communities from meaningful participation.
During a press briefing held in Jakarta on Wednesday, May 7, the coalition criticised Law No. 32 of 2024 on the Amendment to the Conservation of Living Natural Resources and Ecosystems Law (commonly referred to as the KSDAHE Law), saying it was drafted in a closed process that ignored the rights and voices of Indigenous peoples living in and around conservation areas.
Muhammad Arman, a representative from the Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN), stated that the KSDAHE Law fails to meet key legislative principles such as clarity of purpose, utility, and transparency. “In the process of forming the KSDAHE Law, it does not reflect the elements of meaningful participation, usability, usefulness and clarity of the formation of the KSDAHE Law. Of the approximately 20 discussions, only two were open to the public. The rest were conducted behind closed doors,” he said.
The formal review was submitted to the Constitutional Court by AMAN, the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi), the People’s Coalition for Fisheries Justice (Kiara), and a farmer named Mikael Ane. The case is registered as Case No. 132/PUU-XXII/2024.
According to the coalition’s legal counsel, Gregorius Bruno Djako, the law was created without input from those most affected — Indigenous and local communities who are legal subjects under the law. “This law is neither beneficial nor effective. It does not bring utility or result in real outcomes for Indigenous peoples,” Djako said during the first court hearing on October 7, 2024.
He emphasised the lack of a clear legislative objective, noting that the law fails to account for the lived realities and legal rights of communities who have long managed and depended on forest ecosystems.
The coalition also criticised procedural shortcomings in the legislative process. The legal team pointed to the absence of attendance records and academic texts for expert hearings (RDPU), calling the process a mere formality devoid of participatory meaning. They underscored that the formal judicial review process is limited to 60 days under a “speedy trial” mechanism.
Victor Santoso Tandiasa, a member of the KSDAHE Law’s Legal Team, stated that “The JR formal test process includes a ‘speedy trial’ which is carried out for 60 days from the time the President’s statement is received until the maximum limit is 28 June 2025. The Constitutional Court should maximise this period by giving the applicant a full opportunity to present witnesses and experts. However, until now, the Government has not been able to show an attendance list of who participated in the discussion of the KSDAHE Bill.”
Articles 8 and 9 of the new law are particularly controversial, which the coalition fears could legitimise the exclusion of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral territories. The law does not require Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC) in conservation planning, potentially paving the way for land grabs under the guise of environmental protection.
“The KSDAHE Law, in its current form, risks perpetuating the dispossession of Indigenous lands and undermining centuries-old systems of ecological stewardship,” Arman warned.
Indigenous rights groups are urging broader public scrutiny of the law’s implications for environmental justice and Indigenous sovereignty. (nsh)
Banner photo: Indigenous people on Aru Island (Source: Forest Watch Indonesia)
