Legal Literacy - The Citraland case in North Sumatra (Sumut) has become a public spotlight after the North Sumatra High Prosecutor's Office (Kejati) revealed alleged misuse of state assets belonging to PT Perkebunan Nusantara I (PTPN I) Regional I. Based on the investigation, the total land area involved reached approximately 8,077 hectares. The land with Cultivation Rights (HGU) status is suspected of being transferred to Building Use Rights (HGB) to a private party, namely PT Nusa Dua Propertindo (NDP) and PT Deli Megapolitan Kawasan Residensial (DMKR). The land is planned to be used for the construction of the Citraland residential area in Helvetia, Sampali, and Tanjung Morawa. The problem arises because the process of changing the rights is suspected of not going through the legal mechanism that should have been. There were also indications of the involvement of officials from the National Land Agency (BPN) in issuing certificates that violated land administration.

20% Obligation Violated in PP No. 18 of 2021

In the context of the Citraland Sumut case, the main focus of the violation lies in the obligation to hand over land which is allegedly not fulfilled. This provision is clearly regulated in Article 165 of Government Regulation (PP) Number 18 of 2021 concerning Management Rights, Land Rights, Condominium Units, and Land Registration. Article 165 paragraph (1) states:
"In the event of a change in Cultivation Rights due to a revision of the RTR... the Cultivation Rights are adjusted to Building Use Rights or Use Rights with the obligation for the Cultivation Rights holder to hand over at least 20% to the state from the area of ​​the Cultivation Rights land that has been changed."
Paragraph (2) adds that if the HGU is a BUMN asset (such as PTPN I), the 20% handover is carried out in accordance with the laws and regulations regarding BUMN assets. The aim of this regulation is to ensure that the social function of the land is maintained (in accordance with Article 6 of the UUPA). In the Citraland case, this 20% obligation was allegedly not carried out, so the state lost its rights to land that should have been used for public purposes, such as green open spaces or social facilities.

Potential State Losses: Analysis of the Law on Criminal Acts of Corruption

As a result of this alleged deviation, the state has the potential to suffer huge losses. In the UU Tipikor, there are two main articles that are relevant to this case.

Article 2: Elements Detrimental to State Finances

Article 2 paragraph (1) of the UU Tipikor ensnares anyone who is against the law to enrich themselves, other people, or corporations that can harm state finances. In the context of the Citraland case, the element of state loss can be fulfilled from:
  1. Release of BUMN assets (PTPN I) without legal procedures.
  2. Failure to fulfill the obligation to hand over 20% of the land to the state.
  3. Transfer of rights to private parties without a clear legal basis.

Article 3: Elements of Abuse of Authority

Article 3 of the Anti-Corruption Law focuses on abuse of authority. This article ensnares officials who abuse their authority, opportunity, or facilities due to their position or status to benefit themselves, others, or corporations, which can harm state finances.

Understanding Land Status: HGU vs HGB

To understand this case, it is important to know the differences in land rights status in Indonesia according to Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles (UUPA):
  • Right to Cultivate (HGU): The right to cultivate state land (state-owned) for agriculture, plantations, or animal husbandry for a certain period. This was the initial land status of PTPN I.
  • Right to Build (HGB): The right to erect and own buildings on state land or the land of another party for a certain period. This is the status desired by the Citraland developer.
  • Freehold: A hereditary and full right that can only be owned by Indonesian Citizens (WNI).
The problem in the Citraland case is the transfer of function from HGU (state/BUMN assets) to HGB (for private interests) which is suspected of violating procedures.

Conclusion: Weak State Asset Governance

The Citraland North Sumatra land case is not just a land dispute, but a reflection of weak state asset governance and supervision in the national land system. The change from HGU to HGB should pay attention to the principles of agrarian law, the social function of land, and the public interest. Through transparent and fair law enforcement, it is hoped that the management of state assets in the future can run in a more orderly manner and be oriented towards the prosperity of the people.

References

  1. Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles.
  2. Government Regulation Number 18 of 2021 concerning Management Rights, Land Rights, Condominium Units, and Land Registration.
  3. Law Number 31 of 1999 jo. Law Number 20 of 2001 concerning the Eradication of Corruption Crimes.
  4. Analisadaily. (2025). Kejati Sumut Investigates Alleged Corruption of Citraland Land.
  5. DetikSumut. (2025). Citraland Case: North Sumatra Prosecutor's Office Names BPN Official as Suspect.
  6. Strateginews. (2025). Alleged Violations in the Change of Land Use Rights of PTPN I to Citraland's Building Use Rights.