PRIME NEWS POST

Labuan Bajo – Santosa Kadiman, the defendant alleged to be a land mafia figure, is claimed to have been favored by certain members of the panel of judges at the Labuan District Court (PN Labuan). The ruling reportedly legitimized his control over state land based on a title deed with unclear details, including the absence of specified land area.

The panel of judges is said to have complied with the alleged land grabbers’ interests through Civil Cases No. 32/Pdt.G/2025/PN Lbj and 33/Pdt.G/2025/PN Lbj, issued on March 10, 2026. The judges involved are I Made Wirangga Kusuma, S.H., Kevien Dicky Aldison, S.H., and Intan Hendrawati, S.H.

“The panel ruled that Santosa Kadiman’s control of the land is valid, based on a title deed dated October 21, 1991, under the name Beatrix Seran Nggebu – which clearly does not state the land area in square meters,” said Jon Kadis, S.H., a member of the legal team representing plaintiffs Rudini et al., in a statement to the media on Tuesday (March 17, 2026) in Labuan Bajo.

He added that the ruling has sparked public backlash and has been widely reported in the media. Notably, customary leaders and their representatives – including Hj Ramang Ishaka, who testified under oath in a 2021 corruption case involving 30 hectares of land – had clearly stated that Beatrix Seran Nggebu’s land titles in Kerangan were revoked in 1998.

“The land under Beatrix Seran Nggebu’s name (without specified area) is state land, as confirmed by the boundaries of a March 10, 1990 title deed. That document was used to issue a Certificate of Ownership (SHM) to Johanis Vans Naput for land to the west,” he explained.

Jon Kadis also questioned the physical presence of Beatrix Seran and her family (including Niko Naput) on the disputed land in Kerangan. “Where exactly are they occupying, building structures, or clearing land? The land they claim to hold is adjacent to Johanis Vans Naput’s SHM property to the west – which was issued based on the March 10, 1990 title deed (originally under Nasar Bin Haji Supu, later purchased by Nikolaus Naput, Beatrix’s husband),” he emphasized.

Showing copies of the documents, Jon Kadis noted that the March 10, 1990 title deed explicitly designates state land as its eastern boundary. “This same document was used by defendants Santosa Kadiman and the Naput family in a 40-hectare land certification process (PPJBB) at Notary Billy Ginta’s office in January 2014,” he added.

He further detailed the boundaries of the March 10, 1990 land: north – state land; east – state land; south – state land; and west – Flores Sea.

“Once again, the disputed land in Civil Cases No. 32 and 33/2025 is based on the October 21, 1991 title deed under Beatrix Seran Nggebu – which is state land, correct? I repeat: this state land is the eastern boundary of the land covered by the March 10, 1990 title deed,” Jon Kadis stated.

He raised two key questions: First, how could customary leaders of Nggorang/Labuan Bajo transfer state land (via the October 21, 1991 document) to an individual like Beatrix Seran Nggebu?

“Within just a few months of the March 10, 1990 deed – which identified the area as state land – how could it be transferred to private ownership on October 21, 1991? Clearly, this amounts to seizure of state land by Beatrix Seran Nggebu,” he asserted.

Second, what justification did the panel of judges use to declare the October 21, 1991 title deed valid? “So the judges ruled that controlling state land is legitimate? Is seizing state land now considered valid?” he said in a tone of frustration.

Determined to Pursue Justice

Dr. (c) H. Indra Triantoro, S.H., M.H., another member of the plaintiffs’ legal team, said the parties seeking justice had hoped the judges – as representatives of the divine – would deliver clarity and fairness.

“Are the judges handling Cases No. 32 and 33/2025 truly acting as representatives of the divine? Defendants Santosa Kadiman and the Naput family are openly seizing state land, yet the ruling legitimizes this. Are the judges serving as divine representatives or representatives of the defendants?” he questioned.

Appeal Filed and Judges Reported to Judicial Bodies

The legal team stated the ruling contradicts factual evidence, so they have filed an appeal with the Kupang High Court (PT Kupang) and expect the court to professionally assess the facts of the case.

“We have already reported the panel of judges to the Supreme Court Supervisory Board (Bawas MA) and the Judicial Commission (KY) on March 12, 2026,” said Ni Made Widiastanti, S.H., another member of the legal team.

“West Manggarai has strong customary traditions tied to ancestral heritage, including rituals like ‘eating ancestral land’ as a sacred oath. I am concerned that anyone who seizes land not rightfully theirs will face negative consequences,” added Indah Wahyuni, S.H., a member of the plaintiffs’ legal team. (Ed)