The harvest of farmers has not been absorbed optimally, Merauke rice is hampered in marketing, the government has the responsibility to pay attention to the needs of the community, especially farmers in the utilization of the rice harvest which is very abundant. local government policy making in the utilization of rice yields in Merauke district. This research is a normative and socio-legal legal research. This research was conducted at the Regional Secretariat of the Legal Division of Merauke Regency. The location of this research was chosen based on the approach of authority and the level of involvement of the agency. Primary data, and secondary data. The data collection used was literature study, observation and interviews. The analysis technique uses qualitative-descriptive data analysis. Characteristics and concepts of the policy model in the utilization of rice yields, is the existence of government and/or private policies to expand agricultural land. There is communication between government officials or private business entities with the utilization of the rice harvest. There are economic benefits for farmers. The land is dominated by land that is still forested and has not become agricultural land. It needs the support of human resources, water resources, infrastructure and financing. Influencing and livelihood conditions and the economy of local landowners and territories. Policy model in the utilization of rice yields” in this study with the main and supporting theories after being elaborated from the literature study and abstracted from the themes in the field, namely by looking at the existence of government and/or private policies to expand agricultural land. There is communication between government officials or private business entities with the utilization of the rice harvest. There are economic benefits for farmers. The land is dominated by land that is still forested and has not become agricultural land

No abstract

There is a sense of mutual limitation that exists in a democratic state of law, which refers to a democracy that is constrained by the law in terms of both its procedure and its content. The fundamental concept of the rule of law in Indonesia, which was clearly expressed in the Constitution of 1945, cannot be divorced from Pancasila, which serves as the cornerstone of the state and the source of all legal sources. The Emancipatory State of Law provides a method of social integration in a diverse society by stipulating a place for the sovereign people to decide and determine what is best for themselves. This place allows people to decide and determine what is best for themselves. Because of this, the relationship between people's sovereignty and the law is dialectical, which is particularly important considering that Article 1 number 3 of the amendment states that Indonesia is the State of Law.

No abstract

The purpose of this research is to find out how far the laws and regulations govern the authority of indigenous peoples in resolving customary disputes. The research method used in this study is Sociolegal. This research is a study that looks at law through a combination of normative analysis (legal norms, juridical) and non-legal science approaches. Socio-legal nature is prescriptive Giving solutions to legal problems by combining normative analysis and non-legal approaches / social aspects. The authority between the Marind Imbuti Indigenous Peoples Institution and the Marind Indigenous Peoples Institution Community of Kanum Tomer is the Marind Imbuti Indigenous Peoples Institution having the authority to carry out customary justice for each tribe / community in the disputed indigenous community while the customary community does not have the authority to conduct customary hearings for each member of the tribe disputes but all customary justice mechanisms carried out by the Marind Imbuti Community Institution and the Marind Kanum Indigenous Community as regulated in Article 10 of Perdasus Number 20 of 2008 cannot yet be legally accounted for because they are not in accordance with the instructions of article 10 paragraph (2) of Perdasus Number 20 Year 2008. Keywords: Indigenous Peoples Institutions, Indigenous Disputes