Banjarmasin Residents Report Alleged BPN Banjarbaru Maladministration to the Ombudsman

A resident of Banjarmasin, David Pangestu, reported alleged maladministration to the Ombudsman in Banjarmasin, Thursday, May 21, 2026

BANJARBARU - A resident of Banjarmasin, David Pangestu, reported alleged maladministration to the Ombudsman of the Republic of Indonesia for South Kalimantan regarding the failure to implement the court's decision, which has become legally binding by the Banjarbaru City Land Agency (BPN).

The report was submitted by David when he visited the South Kalimantan Ombudsman Office in Banjarmasin, Thursday, May 21. He was received directly by the Head of the South Kalimantan Ombudsman, Hadi Rahman.

In his report, David assessed that the Banjarbaru City BPN had not implemented the Supreme Court's decision No. 103K/TUN/2020 dated March 9, 2020 regarding the revocation of the Certificate of Ownership (SHM) Number 10141 in the name of AGH in the Jalan Aneka Tambang area, Cempaka Village, Banjarbaru City.

The decision, said David, has also been strengthened by the inkracht letter of the Banjarmasin PTUN as well as the Execution Determination of the Banjarmasin PTUN Number 34/PEN-Eks/2018/PTUN.BJM in 2022.

However, until now, the revocation of the certificate has not been implemented. David assessed that the determination of execution from the court should be a strong basis for BPN to carry out the final and binding decision.

"BPN should still carry out the execution of the PTUN decision. If from the beginning the PTUN decision is implemented, then there will be no new lawsuits over the same land object. Because it is not carried out, the conflict continues to develop and legal certainty becomes blurred," said David.

He emphasized that the emergence of another civil lawsuit over the same land object should not be an excuse to ignore the PTUN's decision which has been inkracht.

"The decision to execute the PTUN Banjarmasin already exists, but BPN has not implemented it. This is what makes people wonder. Don't let the public lose confidence in legal certainty," he said.

According to David, the slow implementation of the court's decision actually opens the space for prolonged conflicts, overlapping ownership claims, and the emergence of new cases over the same land objects.

In response to this, the Head of the Banjarbaru City Land Office, Ahmad Suhaimi, said that his party had received a request for cancellation of the SHM on behalf of AGH based on the court's decision which has the force of law.

According to Suhaimi, the Banjarbaru City Land Office then forwarded the application to the South Kalimantan BPN Regional Office according to the land administration mechanism.

However, the cancellation process cannot be continued because the same land object is again a civil case in court.

For David's side, this condition actually shows that the delay in implementing the PTUN ruling from the beginning has triggered a new legal conflict that is increasingly complex.

He assessed that if the court's decision was immediately carried out, prolonged disputes, new lawsuits, and alleged overlapping land administration could be avoided.

This case once again highlights the land management in Banjarbaru, especially related to legal certainty, compliance with court decisions, and protection of people's rights to land.

David hopes that the Indonesian Ombudsman can encourage corrective steps so that the court's decision is truly respected and implemented.

"Now is the time for the Banjarbaru City BPN to provide certainty and justice. Don't let the community continue to be victims of protracted land conflicts because the court's decision is not carried out," he said.

Previously, the spotlight on the Banjarbaru City BPN also appeared in a number of other cases, including the cases of Johanis and Mugdadi.

In the case of Johanis, BPN was highlighted regarding alleged irregularities in land administration in SHM Number 878, including the loss of basic documents or deeds that should have been stored in the land office.

Meanwhile, in the case of Mugdadi, BPN again reaped criticism because it was considered not transparent in opening information related to SHM Number 7721 which was suspected of having a number of administrative irregularities, including the letter document which was said to have not been found and the alleged change in the location of the land on the photocopy of the certificate during the mediation process.