The PIK 2 Land Dispute is a top-tier land case in Indonesian property law, bringing to light the complicated challenges of land ownership, legal processes, and the influence of corporate interests in Indonesia. Charlie Chandra is the center of this contentious legal battle, an Indonesian businessman whose fight to protect his family’s land has exposed significant flaws in the country’s legal system. This case has highlighted the complexities of land ownership in Indonesia and sparked discussions on the need for comprehensive legal reforms to ensure fairness and transparency.
The Chandra family’s involvement with the disputed land dates back to 1988 when Charlie Chandra’s father, Sumita Chandra, secured ownership of a valuable piece of land in Tangerang, Indonesia. The land, documented under Sertifikat Hak Milik (SHM) No. 5/Lemo, became a cherished asset for the Chandra family, symbolizing their stability and legacy in the region. As the rightful owner, Sumita Chandra ensured the land was legally recognized and properly documented, safeguarding the property from potential disputes.
However, following Sumita Chandra’s passing, Charlie sought to transfer the land title to all heirs, a process that appeared simple but launched him into a complex legal ordeal. This effort to maintain his family’s legacy catalyzed a protracted legal dispute that would challenge Charlie’s resolve and test the integrity of Indonesia’s legal and governmental institutions.
The land in question, situated in a rapidly developing area, had become dramatically valuable, attracting the interest of powerful corporations. One such corporation was PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur (PT MBM), a subsidiary of the influential PT Agung Sedayu Group (PT PANI, Tbk). Aware of the land’s potential, PT MBM had physically occupied the property for some time, which complicated Charlie’s attempts to transfer ownership formally.
In early 2020, Charlie consulted with a Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah (PPAT) in Tangerang to begin the process of transferring the title of SHM No. 5/Lemo. On February 1, the Indonesian National Land Office (BPN) issued a certificate check result confirming that the land was still legally registered under Sumita Chandra’s name, with no existing blocks, seizures, or disputes. Based on this, the PPAT assured Charlie that the transfer process could proceed smoothly, leading him to submit the necessary documents to BPN for processing.
However, just as the process seemed to be moving forward, PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur lodged a formal complaint, alleging that the documents submitted for the transfer were forged. These allegations were made under Article 263 Jo. 55 of the Indonesian Criminal Code threw the entire transfer process into chaos. PT MBM’s actions were an attempt to challenge the transfer and a calculated move to seize control of the land, leveraging legal mechanisms to assert dominance over the property.
The situation quickly escalated as PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur’s allegations prompted a series of legal actions. On March 3, Rudi Rubijaya, Head of BPN, canceled Sumita Chandra’s name on the transfer record of SHM No. 5/Lemo upon PT MBM’s request. This decision reverted ownership to the two previous titleholder, The Pit Nio, effectively nullifying Charlie’s efforts to secure his family’s land.
Confident in his case, Charlie filed a lawsuit against PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur and PT Agung Sedayu (PT PANI, Tbk), accusing them of illegally occupying his family’s land since 2015. Charlie’s legal battle was supported by two crucial court rulings—No. 726/Pdt/1998/PT.Bdg and No. 250 PK/Pdt/2004—both of which confirmed that Sumita Chandra was the rightful owner of the land. These rulings reinforced Charlie’s position, making it clear that his family had a legitimate claim to the property.
Despite these favorable rulings, the legal challenges continued. On November 21, Charlie was summoned as a suspect in the alleged document forgery case. He did not attend the second summons on December 4, citing the absence of a formal letter of determination as a suspect, as required by the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. This procedural lapse raised serious concerns about the fairness and legality of the actions taken against him.
To seek justice, Charlie requested a Special Case Review at the Police’s Criminal Investigation Bureau (Wassidik Bareskrim Polri) on December 6. However, even as this review was underway, Yudhis Wibisana, Director of Criminal Investigation of the Banten Police, issued an arrest warrant for Charlie. The warrant was issued without formal notification to Charlie or his family, further complicating the legal roadmap and casting a shadow over the legitimacy of the proceedings.
Amidst the mounting legal pressures, Advocate Alvin Lim stepped in to mediate the dispute. Known for his expertise in handling complex legal cases, Lim recognized that the ongoing legal battle could be resolved more effectively through mediation rather than prolonged litigation. Through his efforts, Charlie and the opposing parties reached an amicable resolution.
On May 31, the Banten Regional Police issued an SP3 (Order to Stop Investigation), effectively halting the investigation into Charlie due to the principles of restorative justice. This marked a significant victory for Charlie, leading to his release from detention and ending a long and arduous legal battle.
The PIK 2 Land Dispute is not an isolated incident; it reflects broader concerns about the power imbalance between ordinary citizens and powerful corporations in Indonesia. This imbalance has been starkly highlighted in several other cases involving the PIK 2 project.
One notable case is that of Ahmad Ghozali and Tonny Permana, who are embroiled in a legal battle over 4,168 square meters of land now part of the PIK 2 area. The case, currently ongoing in the North Jakarta District Court, exemplifies the prolonged and complex nature of land disputes in Indonesia, particularly when powerful developers are involved.
Furthermore, Muhammad Said Didu, a former Secretary of the Ministry of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN), has been an outspoken critic of the PSN status granted to PIK 2. He argues that this status has been misused by developers to displace local communities and disrupt their livelihoods. Said Didu contends that the PSN designation often results in unfair pressure on small landowners, forcing them to accept low compensation or face the legal might of large corporations. His criticism highlights the urgent need for legal reforms that protect the rights of citizens and prevent the exploitation of legal mechanisms by powerful interests.
The PIK 2 project has also significantly impacted local communities, particularly in Lemo Village. The construction of high walls by PIK 2 has blocked access routes and severely affected the livelihoods of residents. Fish farmers in the area have reported substantial income losses due to increased flooding, a direct consequence of the development. These issues have sparked protests and legal challenges from residents, who feel marginalized and powerless in the face of such large-scale developments.
The power dynamics at play are further exemplified in the case of Dedy Chandra, popularly known as Om Polos Bangeta, a TikToker who was sentenced to two years in prison and fined Rp50 million for posting a critical review of an apartment at Tokyo Riverside PIK 2, a development by PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur (MBM).
Om Polos Banget’s videos, which raised concerns about the structural integrity of the apartments, went viral and reportedly led to a significant number of canceled purchases. In response, PT MBM filed a defamation lawsuit against him, leveraging the ITE Law to silence his critique. The court’s ruling against Om Polos Banget underlines how powerful corporations can use legal mechanisms to stifle dissent and highlights the ongoing struggle for freedom of expression in Indonesia.
The PIK 2 Land Dispute, alongside the cases of Om Polos Banget, Ahmad Ghozali and Tonny Permana, and the issues raised by Muhammad Said Didu, underscores the urgent need for legal reform in Indonesia. These cases demonstrate how the law can be used to suppress the rights of individuals, whether through unjust land seizures or the criminalization of online speech. Charlie Chandra’s victory, while significant, is just one step in a much larger journey toward ensuring that the legal system in Indonesia serves justice fairly and equitably, regardless of the parties involved.