Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This research analyzes the legal implications of customary villages in Indonesia, highlighting issues with village law and constitutional alignment.
The lack of bureaucratic village (BV) connecting agreements with customary villages (CV) raises serious concerns regarding whether such arrangements exist. It is vital to understand the institutional connections between the two groups. The aim of this research is to analyze the legitimacy and legal implications of customary village regulations and provide an explanation of the disharmonious proposition of customary village regulations in Law number 6 of 2014 to Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (UUD 1945). This research uses the socio-legal case study method with observation loci of Gampong-Mukim Aceh, Tosari-Tengger village, Kanekes-Baduy, Tenganan Pegringsingan-Karangasem, and Pecatu-Badung. This research collects the legal materials using techniques Document-Review and focus group discussion on Customary Village arrangements. The research results show that the regulation of Customary Villages in Law number 6 of 2014 concerning Villages is not valid because it is not in sync with norms of Indonesia Constituions. Meanwhile, there are indications several inconsistencies between Regional Regulations and Law number 6 of 2014 at the Regional Regulation level of the observation area. The indications of intervention occurred in the observed Customary Villages through Law number 6 of 2014. Customary Village arrangements are not appropriately approached through legal intervention reasoning unless they are sufficiently recognized. Regulatory intervention has implications for illegitimacy in Law number 6 of 2014
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kridasakti et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: