The PIK 2 Land Dispute has become a center of attention in Indonesia, drawing focus to the complexities of land ownership, the power of corporate entities, and the weaknesses within the country’s legal system. Charlie Chandra is a businessman with close ties to this dispute whose fight to reclaim his family’s land in Tangerang has exposed significant flaws in legal processes and raised questions about the influence of corporations in Indonesian law. This case offers a detailed look at the challenges faced by individuals in protecting their property rights against powerful corporate interests.
The Chandra family’s connection to the disputed land dates back to 1988, when Charlie Chandra’s mother, Sumita Chandra, became the rightful owner of a valuable piece of land in Tangerang, Indonesia. This land, recorded under Sertifikat Hak Milik (SHM) No. 5/Lemo (land title certificate issued by the Indonesian National Land Office), was more than just an asset; it was a legacy representing the family’s stability and future. Following Sumita Chandra’s passing, the responsibility of managing and securing this land fell to her son, Charlie.
As Charlie sought to transfer the title of SHM No. 5/Lemo to the rightful heirs, he encountered unexpected challenges. The land had become a target for PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur (PT MBM) , a powerful PT Agung Sedayu Group subsidiary (PT PANI, Tbk). PT MBM had physically occupied the land for years, recognizing its potential value due to the rapid development of the surrounding PIK 2 area. This occupation complicated Charlie’s efforts to transfer the land title, leading to a legal battle that would challenge the integrity of Indonesia’s land ownership laws.
In early 2020, Charlie began transferring the land title by consulting with a Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah (PPAT) in Tangerang. On February 1, the Indonesian National Land Office (BPN) confirmed that SHM No. 5/Lemo was still legally registered under Sumita Chandra’s name, with no blocks, seizures, or disputes recorded against it. Based on this confirmation, the PPAT assured Charlie that the transfer process could proceed, and the necessary documents were submitted to BPN for processing.
However, PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur quickly lodged a formal complaint, alleging that the documents submitted for the transfer were forged. The company’s accusations were serious, claiming that Charlie and the PPAT had violated Articles 263 Jo. 55 of the Indonesian Criminal Code by attempting to transfer the land using fraudulent documentation. These allegations were a legal challenge and a strategic move by PT MBM to disrupt the transfer process and assert control over the land.
On March 3, under significant pressure from PT MBM, BPN Head Rudi Rubijaya made the controversial decision to cancel the transfer record of SHM No. 5/Lemo from The Pit Nio to Chairul Wijaya to Sumita Chandra. This decision reverted ownership back to a previous titleholder, The Pit Nio, effectively nullifying Charlie’s efforts to secure his family’s land. The legal battle was now fully underway, with Charlie fighting to reclaim his property from a powerful corporate entity.
In response to the cancellation of the land transfer, Charlie filed a lawsuit against PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur and PT Agung Sedayu, accusing them of illegally occupying the land since 2015. Charlie’s case was supported by two critical court rulings—No. 726/Pdt/1998/PT.Bdg and No. 250 PK/Pdt/2004—both confirmed that Sumita Chandra was the rightful owner of the land. These rulings provided Charlie with a strong legal foundation but were not enough to deter the powerful corporate interests at play.
As the legal battle intensified, PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur continued to use its influence to challenge Charlie’s claims. 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 lack of a formal letter of determination as a suspect, as required by the Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code. This procedural misstep raised serious questions about the legitimacy of the legal actions taken against him and highlighted the extent of corporate influence in the case.
Charlie, seeking a fair review of his case, requested a Special Case Review at the Police’s Criminal Investigation Bureau (Wassidik Bareskrim Polri) on December 6. Despite this, 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 landscape and underscoring the influence that powerful corporations could wield over law enforcement and legal proceedings.
As the legal pressures mounted, Charlie turned to Advocate Alvin Lim, a seasoned legal expert known for his ability to navigate complex disputes. Lim recognized that the ongoing litigation was emotionally and financially draining for Charlie and unlikely to yield a swift resolution. Instead, Lim sought to mediate the dispute, using his experience to broker an agreement between Charlie and the opposing parties.
Through Lim’s efforts, an amicable resolution was eventually reached. 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 decision marked a significant victory for Charlie, leading to his release from detention and bringing an end to a legal battle that had spanned several months.
The PIK 2 Land Dispute, along with other related cases, highlights a critical juncture in Indonesia’s legal landscape. These incidents reveal the deep imbalances in power between large corporations and ordinary citizens, raising serious questions about the effectiveness of current legal protections for landowners and community members.
Charlie Chandra’s battle to defend his family’s land has become more than just a personal fight—it has exposed the weaknesses in Indonesia’s legal and regulatory frameworks. The interference by powerful corporate entities, such as PT Mandiri Bangun Makmur and PT Agung Sedayu, demonstrates how easily these systems can be manipulated, often at the expense of those with fewer resources and influence.
The involvement of outspoken critics like Muhammad Said Didu emphasizes the broader implications of these disputes. His warnings about the misuse of the PSN status to displace communities and undermine local rights underscore the urgent need for reform. Said Didu’s advocacy serves as a critical reminder that without systemic changes, these issues will continue to plague Indonesian society, affecting countless lives.
The ongoing cases involving Ahmad Ghozali and Tonny Permana, as well as the struggles faced by communities like Lemo Village, further illustrate the widespread impact of these legal battles. These situations are not just legal disputes—they are existential threats to the livelihoods and rights of ordinary Indonesians, who often find themselves outmatched by powerful corporate interests.
The prosecution of Om Polos Banget, who faced severe legal repercussions for voicing his concerns online, is a stark example of how freedom of expression can be curtailed when it challenges the status quo. His case serves as a cautionary tale for anyone who dares to speak out against corporate malpractices in a climate where such voices are often silenced through legal means.
As these cases continue to unfold, they shine a light on the urgent need for more equitable legal protections in Indonesia. The current legal system must be reformed to ensure that it serves all citizens equally, regardless of their economic or social standing. The lessons from the PIK 2 dispute and related cases are clear: Indonesia needs a legal system that upholds justice and fairness, protecting the rights of individuals and communities from the undue influence of powerful corporate entities.
Only through meaningful reform can Indonesia build a legal framework that truly reflects the principles of justice, equity, and the rule of law. The time to act is now, to prevent further erosion of public trust in the legal system and to safeguard the rights of every Indonesian citizen.
The resolution of the PIK 2 Land Dispute outlines the power of mediation and the importance of legal expertise in navigating complex cases. However, it also highlighted the need for comprehensive legal reforms in Indonesia to protect individual landowners from the influence of powerful corporate entities.
