<![CDATA[This research seeks to investigate the source of legal certainty in land procurement and formulate a more proportionate model of law between state development and the protection of citizens. This research employed a socio-legal approach, using document analysis and a case study of PIK 2 in Tangerang Regency. Forty-five secondary documents were analysed, consisting of 12 regulations and regulatory instruments, one court decision, four policy documents and institutional reports, 25 books and journal articles, three publications by civilians, and credible media reports. Research results reveal that the regulations concerning land procurement in Indonesia have guaranteed procedural certainty through clearly established stages, authority distribution, redress mechanisms, and objection procedures. However, the protection of the affected community is not sufficiently provided, particularly with regard to participation, the assessment of public interests, loss calculation, livelihood recovery, and oversight of government discretion. The case of PIK 2, including matters contained in the Supreme Court Decision No. 12 P/HUM/2025, indicates that government support and strategic project status do not always guarantee legal certainty if the policy foundation is doubted in both the legal and social context. This condition is often referred to as distorted legal certainty. To address this issue, this research offers the concept of equitable legal certainty-a model that sets a balance between legal certainty and the protection for the community rights by involving legal audit, public interest assessment, meaningful participation, comprehensive redress, livelihood recovery, and oversight conducted post-land procurement.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
