T

he Grand Council of Customary Villages (MUDP) has criticized Bali for planning to file a judicial review over the newly endorsed Village Law, arguing that the law could actually strengthen the customary villages'€™ roles as the gatekeepers of Balinese traditions.

MUDP is the umbrella organization for the island'€™s 1,488 customary villages.

'€œThere'€™s no need for a judicial review. This is a breakthrough law, as it gives autonomy to villages,'€ MUDP secretary Ketut Sumarta told journalists on Friday.

'€œThis law will develop villages and help residents without diluting their identity,'€ he said.

Ketut said that many people had misunderstood the law as something that would weaken customary villages.

The misunderstanding led to the proposal for a judicial review at the Constitutional Court, as well as pushing people to demand special autonomy for Bali that would exclude it from the law.

'€œIt'€™s a misunderstanding. The village law is a revolution, which gives a new perspective on villages. This is the best law ever,'€ Ketut said.

Article 6 of the law stipulates that the regional administration must only register one form of village to be acknowledged as the official village in the state structure; posing regions such as Bali a dilemma as it has more than one type of village.

 In Bali, administrative villages and customary villages have coexisted for decades without any significant problem.

An administrative village is a formal government-defined village that manages administrative issues, such as the issuance of ID cards, while a customary village is a unit for the purposes of adat (customary laws).

The two types of villages overlap each other and can encompass the same area and have for years run smoothly side by side.

There are 716 administrative villages across Bali.

A recent meeting presided by Bali Governor Made Mangku Pastika failed to define which village would be registered.

At that time, the administration'€™s legal team put forward the motion that registering customary villages would be too risky, as it could lead to customary village losing its spirit.

The team said that the structure of a customary village would change should it be handed over to the government.

Pastika said a judicial review was needed, especially on Article 6.

The Sabha Kertha, the MUDP'€™s highest forum, in May urged the government to register customary villages rather than administrative villages in an attempt to preserve Balinese culture.

Ketut said that his legal team'€™s analysis was wrong, explaining that the law stipulated a special place for customary villages.

'€œSubchapter 13 stipulates that customary villages can manage the village based on its origin and keep their customary functions,'€ he said.

'€œThe law stated that customary villages should keep their tradition rights. So, nothing will change. Customary villages can stay focused on culture and tradition,'€ he added.

Ketut said special autonomy was also unnecessary, arguing '€œpreserving culture and tradition was the spirit of special autonomy for Bali'€.

A special section could be established under the customary village, he said. '€œThe administrative section can work as administrative village, but under the customary village.'€

Ketut has also reiterated that MUDP had never thought the special budget given to village was important. '€œThis is not about budget, not about money, but how to keep the customary villages and keep our Balinese traditions.'€