InfoSAWIT, JAKARTA – The Center for Natural Resources Law Studies and Advocacy (PUSTAKA ALAM) has criticized the actions of the Task Force for Forest Area Enforcement (Satgas PKH), arguing that its seizure of palm oil plantations has exceeded its authority and violated legal certainty principles.

The criticism focuses on the confiscation of plantations that already hold Right to Cultivate (HGU) permits, including companies that have reportedly won their cases up to the Supreme Court of Indonesia.

PUSTAKA ALAM Director Muhamad Zainal Arifin questioned whether administrative decisions by the task force could override final court rulings.

“This phenomenon raises a fundamental question: can an administrative decision by a task force annul a ruling issued by the highest court?” Zainal said in a statement quoted by InfoSAWIT on Tuesday (January 27, 2026).

Court Rulings Must Take Precedence

Responding to land seizures that have reportedly obtained permanent legal force, Zainal cited the legal principle of res judicata pro veritate habetur, which holds that court decisions must be regarded as correct and respected by all parties, including state authorities.

“Final and binding court decisions are the highest legal products and must take precedence over administrative decisions by Satgas PKH. The task force has no authority to annul Supreme Court rulings. Forcing the seizure of land that has been declared legally valid by judges constitutes a clear act of disobedience to the law,” he stressed.

Errors in Forest Area Mapping Highlighted

PUSTAKA ALAM also argued that the root of the problem lies in errors by the government and the task force in treating provincial-scale forest designation decrees as final forest area determinations.

According to Zainal, his organization holds data on partial forest area designation decrees that have undergone boundary demarcation processes between 1987 and 2014. However, Satgas PKH allegedly ignored these documents and instead relied on preliminary forest designation decrees as the basis for land seizures.

He also referred to the doctrine of rechtsverwerking, under which the state may be deemed to have relinquished its claim by allowing HGU utilization to continue for years without objection—especially since forestry authorities were involved during the issuance process.

Plantations Still Seized Despite Court Victories

PUSTAKA ALAM recorded that at least three plantations in North Sumatra, and one each in Central Kalimantan, West Kalimantan, and South Kalimantan, remain under seizure despite having won their court cases.

Zainal warned that ignoring legally binding rulings undermines Indonesia’s status as a state governed by the rule of law and sends a negative signal to investors.

“Such practices signal that Indonesia has become a high-risk destination for plantation investment, where HGU certificates no longer guarantee asset security,” he concluded. (T2)