Government Rejects IKN Law Lawsuit: Indigenous Participation Has Been Carried Out, FPIC Is Not a Veto Right
Baca dalam 60 detik
- Pemerintah menegaskan bahwa perencanaan IKN telah melibatkan partisipasi masyarakat adat melalui berbagai mekanisme, termasuk konsultasi publik dan musyawarah.
- Dalil pemohon bahwa frasa 'memperhatikan' dalam Pasal 21 UU IKN menjadikan masyarakat adat objek pasif dibantah dengan argumen bahwa kedaulatan rakyat tidak berarti setiap kebijakan butuh persetujuan individual.
- Prinsip FPIC diakui, tetapi pemerintah menolak jika dimaknai sebagai hak veto mutlak yang mensyaratkan persetujuan kolektif untuk setiap kebijakan berdampak.
The government strongly rejects the argument that Law Number 3 of 2022 on the National Capital (IKN Law) ignores the rights of indigenous peoples. In a follow-up hearing at the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday (24/9/2026), government representatives stressed that the IKN planning process in East Kalimantan has opened space for participation by affected communities, including indigenous groups.
Kurniawan Ariadi, Expert Staff for Institutional Relations at the Ministry of National Development Planning/Bappenas, stated that the IKN master plan explicitly places active and continuous participation as part of the development design. He referred to Article 37 of the IKN Law, which provides participation channels such as public consultation, deliberation, partnership, and the submission of aspirations.
The lawsuit centers on a judicial review of the phrase "memperhatikan" (taking into account) in Article 21 of the IKN Law. The article requires spatial planning, land affairs, the environment, and defense and security to be carried out with due regard for and protection of the individual and communal rights of indigenous peoples as well as local cultural values. The petitioners argue that the phrase reduces indigenous peoples to passive objects, with no room to determine the fate of their own customary territories.
The government responded with a constitutional argument. According to Kurniawan, popular sovereignty guaranteed by Article 1 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution is exercised through established representative and democratic mechanisms. "Popular sovereignty cannot be interpreted to mean that every national development policy must first obtain the individual or collective approval of every affected community group," he said during the hearing.
On the principle of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), known in Indonesia as PADIATAPA, the government acknowledges and respects the existence of customary law communities and their traditional rights. However, the government rejects any interpretation of the principle as an absolute veto authority. According to Kurniawan, under the national legal system, FPIC is realized through the state's obligation to provide adequate information, involve communities in decision-making, provide space for aspirations, and protect the rights and interests of affected parties in accordance with the nature of the activity.
"The embodiment of this principle in IKN development is set out, among other things, in Article 21 of the National Capital Law through the obligation to take into account and provide protection for the rights of indigenous peoples and cultural values that reflect local wisdom."
— Kurniawan Ariadi, Expert Staff at Bappenas
For readers in Indonesia, particularly market players and professionals, this dispute is not merely a normative debate. The Constitutional Court's ruling on the IKN Law will determine legal certainty for a national strategic project that absorbs large investment, including from the private sector and state-owned enterprises. Constitutional uncertainty could affect the investment climate in the property, construction, and infrastructure sectors in the IKN area and its surroundings.
Furthermore, the way the Constitutional Court interprets indigenous participation will set a precedent for other large projects that intersect with customary land, such as mining, plantations, and renewable energy. If the court strengthens the position of indigenous peoples, the government and corporations must adjust consultation and consent mechanisms on the ground. Conversely, if the government's argument is accepted, the current participation standards are deemed adequate.
What bears watching is that the government has repeatedly emphasized that FPIC is not a veto right. This signals that the state wants to preserve room to execute projects without being hindered by absolute customary claims. However, for indigenous peoples, that interpretation risks reinforcing unequal power relations, in which the state and investors have full control over the final decision.
With the hearings still ongoing, the public awaits whether the Constitutional Court will broaden the meaning of participation or instead affirm the government's interpretation. This ruling will affect not only IKN but also how Indonesia balances development and the rights of indigenous peoples across the country.
