Green Legality Certificate on Agrarian Reform: Indonesian Experience


As the most essential human need, territory is crucial for the survival of humanity. The increase in population and demand for land, as a result of urbanization, can no longer satisfy human requirements. The research method in this study is a normative legal research method. The approach method uses a statute approach, a comparative approach, and an analytical approach. The green certification serves as evidence for the legality of a building, fulfilling the criteria for a green building, as well as supports the green movement, which contributes to a positive public image. In the future, unregistered land could receive electronic certificates for the first time through land registration. As a guarantee of ownership of land rights, the legislation provides holders of electronic certificates with legal protection. The electronic information and transaction law (IET Law) accepts electronic land certificates as proof of electronic tenure.

Keywords: green legality, land, certificate, Agrarian reform

[1] Qin M, Lin W, Li J, Yu Z, Wachenheim C. Impact of land registration and certification on land rental by Chinese farmers. Land Use Policy. 2020 Dec;99:104875.

[2] Aditya T, Santosa PB, Yulaikhah Y, Widjajanti N, Atunggal D, Sulistyawati M. Validation and collaborative mapping to accelerate quality assurance of land registration. Land Use Policy. 2021;109:105689.

[3] Ji Y, Fu J, Lu Y, Liu B. Three-dimensional-based global drought projection under global warming tendency. Atmos Res. 2023 Aug;291:106812.

[4] Barcena-Vazquez J, Caro K, Bermudez K, Zatarain-Aceves H. Designing and evaluating Reto Global, a serious video game for supporting global warming awareness. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2023 Sep;177:103080.

[5] Gao X. Modern design of rural green buildings based on big data technology. Cities. 2023 Oct;141:104387.

[6] Kim S, Lim BT, Oo BL. Energy consumption and carbon emissions of mandatory green certified offices in Australia: Evidence and lessons learnt across 2011–2020. Sustainability (Basel). 2022 Oct;14(21):13773.

[7] Lai F, Zhou J, Lu L, Hasanuzzaman M, Yuan Y. Green building technologies in Southeast Asia: A review. Sustain Energy Technol Assess. 2023 Feb;55:102946.

[8] Li X, Feng W, Liu X, Yang Y. A comparative analysis of green building rating systems in China and the United States. Sustain Cities Soc. 2023 Jun;93:104520.

[9] Nkini S, Nuyts E, Kassenga G, Swai O, Verbeeck G. Comparative analysis of the energy performance in green and non-green office buildings in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. Energy Build. 2023 Aug;293:113202.

[10] Ahmad T. Green Building success factors: an exploratory inquiry. J Build Eng. 2023 Oct;76:107136.

[11] Glaumann M, Malm T, Larsson J. Evaluation of green buildings in Sweden. Build Res Inform. 1999 Jul;27(4–5):276–85.

[12] Wuni IY, Bao Z, Yevu SK, Tetteh MO. Theorizing the path dependencies and hierarchical structure of the multidimensional risks in green building projects. J Build Eng. 2023 Jun;68:106069.

[13] McCarthy JF, Dhiaulhaq A, Afiff S, Robinson K. Land reform rationalities and their governance effects in Indonesia: provoking land politics or addressing adverse formalisation? Geoforum. 2022;132(April):92–102.

[14] Firmandayu N, Elfaki KE. The electronic government policy-based green constitution towards good governance. J. Sustain. Dev. Regul. Issues. 2023 May;1(2):108–21.

[15] Fatoni Y, Sulistiyono A, Karjoko L. The comparative study about intellectual property rights and the transfer of land rights for the development of Indonesia Land Law. Unram Law Rev. 2023 Apr;7(1):

[16] Janus J, Ertunç E. Impact of land consolidation on agricultural decarbonization: Estimation of changes in carbon dioxide emissions due to farm transport. Sci Total Environ. 2023 May;873:162391.

[17] Dieguez L, Sotirov M. FSC sustainability certification as green-lane for legality verification under the EUTR? Changes and policy learning at the interplay of private governance and public policy. For Policy Econ. 2021 Oct;131:102568.

[18] Nuzul Indrawan LA, Munandar A. “Juridicial review implementation of land registration according to government regulation no. 18 of 2021 concerningmanagement rights, land rights, flat units and land registration.” Policy, law. notary Regul. ISSUES. 2021 Jan;1(1):39–56.

[19] Swardhana GM, Jenvitchuwong S. “The participation within indigenous land management: developments and challenges of indigenous communities protection.” J Hum Rights Cult Leg Syst. 2023 Jun;3(2):308–27

[20] “Legal Problems of Land Services Online.” Int J Reglem Soc. IJRS. 2022;( Jan):

[21] Zainuddin Z, Ramadhani R. The legal force of electronic signatures in online mortgage registration. J Penelit Huk Jure. 2021 Jun;21(2):243.

[22] Syarief E. Electronic land certificates: Its goals and challenges. Res Horiz. 2021 Aug;1(4):120–5.

[23] Widyastuti R. Community legal protection and the legal position of electronic land certificate in land registration based on notarial assets. Int J Multicult Multireligious Underst. 2021 May;8(5):207.

[24] Kutyłowski M, Błaśkiewicz P. Advanced electronic signatures and eIDAS – analysis of the concept. Comput Stand Interfaces. 2023 Jan;83:103644.

[25] Prasetya AG, Bawono BT. The juridical analysis of the use of electronic signatures on electronic land certificates in the conception of legal certainty. Sultan Agung Notary Law Rev. 2022 Aug;4(3):771.

[26] Pakpahan K, Azharuddin A, Leviyanti L. Problems of implementation of electronic land certificate arrangements as debt guarantee. Prophet. Law Rev. 2022 Jun;4(1):70–91.