Search

This paper aims to discuss Indonesia's current legal framework of citizenship following its more pervasive demand to adopt dual citizenship. It argues that several issues regarding citizenship law in Indonesia have been relatively problematic, mainly related to the change of citizenship status contentiously experienced by Arcandra Tahar, Gloria Natapraja, and Djoko Tjandra to the increasing demand for dual citizenship. On the other hand, in this context, Indonesia's diasporas have voiced this interest in legal reform, resulting in more flexible opportunities and supporting transboundary businesses, as they have encountered some challenges due to restricted citizenship regulations. Using legal research, this study showed that citizenship had become a strategic issue with far-reaching implications. While Indonesia adopts a limited scale of dual citizenship and the vigour for dual citizenship has increased, the flexibility over dual citizenship requires further study of national security and citizens' loyalty to Indonesia. This paper suggested in adopting India’s OCI model for Indonesia’s citizenship policies as ample opportunities for this country’s citizens with foreign status to continue enjoying and accessing their rights in Indonesia, except in the political field. This measure subsequently would be a step forward to adapt citizenship regulations to globalisation while still paying attention to the nationalism concern.

Inconsistency between Article 41 paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2012 concerning Land Procurement for Development in the Public Interest and Article 19 paragraph (2) letter c of Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles in conjunction with Article 32 of Regulation Government Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration. Article 19 paragraph (2) letter c of the UUPA in conjunction with Article 32 of PP Number 24 of 1997 which states that the certificate is valid as a strong evidence. Meanwhile, Article 41 paragraph (3) of Law Number 2 of 2012 explains that the certificate is valid as a means of absolute proof and cannot be contested in the future. The sentence “inviolability in the future raises the perception that Article 41 will give birth to injustice for third parties if he is the rightful owner of the plot of land that is used as the object of land acquisition. This study aims to determine the suitability of the law on land acquisition for development in the public interest with the land registration system in Indonesia and the legal consequences if there are parties who object to proof of ownership of land acquisition objects for development in the public interest. The method used in this research is normative juridical using a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The method of collecting legal materials is through literature study with deductive analysis. From the results of the study, it can be concluded that the law on land acquisition for development in the public interest is not in accordance with the land registration system in Indonesia which causes if there are parties who object to the certificate as proof of ownership of the object of land acquisition, then that party will lose their land rights along with compensation. losses on the implementation of land acquisition if the objecting party can provide other evidence that can weaken the strength of proof of the certificate.