---

Ike Farida as Principal Applicant delivered petition arguments at judicial review on Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation, on Thursday (11/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie

 

 

The Constitutional Court held inaugural session on Act Number 5 Year 1960 of Agrarian Basic Regulation (Undang-Undang Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria –UU Pokok Agraria) and Act Number 1 Year 1974 of Marriage (Undang Undang Perkawinan –UU Perkawinan) towards the 1945 Constitution. The judicial review petition was filed by Ike Farida, an Indonesian citizen who married with a Japanese foreigner.

The Applicant reviewed the provision on Article 21 (1), Article 21 (3), Article 36 (1) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation and Article 29 (1) and Article 35 (1) Act of Marriage which stated:

 

Article 21 (1) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation

Indonesian citizens only who could have property right

(Hanya warga-negara Indonesia dapat mempunyai hak milik.)

 

Article 21 (3) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation

Foreigners who after this Act enacted granted property right because intestate inheritance or treasury mixing due to marriage, as well as Indonesian citizens who have property right after the enactment of Act lost their citizenship are obliged to release their right within one year since the right granted or the citizenship lost. If the right released after the time limit passed, the right is removed by law and the land handed over to the State, in terms other parties’ rights which burdened are still remained.

(Orang asing yang sesudah berlakunya Undang-undang ini memperoleh hak milik karena pewarisan tanpa wasiat atau percampuran harta karena perkawinan, demikian pula warga-negara Indonesia yang mempunyai hak milik dan setelah berlakunya Undang-undang ini kehilangan kewarganegaraannya wajib melepaskan hak itu didalam jangka waktu satu tahun sejak diperolehnya hak tersebut atau hilangnya kewarganegaraan itu. Jika sesudah jangka waktu tersebut lampau hak milik itu dilepaskan, maka hak tersebut hapus karena hukum dan tanahnya jatuh pada Negara, dengan ketentuan bahwa hak-hak pihak lain yang membebaninya tetap berlangsung.)

 

Article 36 (1) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation

People who may have building rights are: a. Indonesian citizens; b. legal entities established under Indonesian law and located in Indonesia.

(Yang dapat mempunyai hak guna bangunan ialah: a. warga negara Indonesia; b. badan hukum yang didirikan menurut hukum Indonesia dan berkedudukan di Indonesia.)

 

Article 29 (1) Act of Marriage

During or before marriage, both parties under join agreement could conduct written treaty which legalized by marriage registrar officials, after which its contain also applied to third party along the third party related.

(Pada waktu atau sebelum perkawinan dilangsungkan, kedua pihak atas persetujuan bersama dapat mengadakan perjanjian tertulis yang disahkan oleh Pegawai pencatat perkawinan, setelah mana isinya berlaku juga terhadap pihak ketiga sepanjang pihak ketiga tersangkut.)

 

Article 35 (1) Act of Marriage

Property acquired during the marriage becomes joint property.

(Harta benda yang diperoleh selama perkawinan menjadi harta bersama.)

 

According to the Applicant, the norms above had removed her rights to grant Freehold and Building Right Title (Hak Milik dan Hak Guna Bangunan). It was because the apartment purchasing treaty conducted by the Applicant was unilaterally cancelled by the developers because her husband was foreigner and the Applicant had no marriage agreement. The Applicant added, the purchasing cancellation was justified by East Jakarta District Court decision which stated the cancellation of order letter as a result of unfulfilling objective validity terms of an agreement, which was violation to Article 36 (1) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation.

“It can be concluded Applicant’s right to own apartment is wiped out by the enactment of articles in Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation and Act of Marriage,” said him at the session of Case Number 69/PUU/XIII/2015 on Thursday (11/6) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building

Therefore in the petitum, the Applicant requested the Court to declare the phrase ‘Indonesian citizens’ in Article 21 (1) and Article 36 (1) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation contrary to the Constitution and had no legal binding if it wasn’t interpreted ‘an individual Indonesian citizen without exception’ (warga negara Indonesia tunggal tanpa terkecuali).

Moreover, the Applicant requested the Court to declare the phrase during or before marriage and so forth in Article 29 (1) Act of Marriage contrary to the 1945 Constitution and had no legal binding. The last was the Applicant requested to the Court to declare the phrase ‘joint property’ in Article 35 (1) Act of Marriage contrary to the Constitution if it wasn’t interpreted as ‘right to sue’.

Responding the petition, Justice Panel led by Deputy Chief Anwar Usman asked the Applicant to emphasize the discrimination suffered if the norm applied. “Concrete case is only for entering (your argument,red) that articles you filed unconstitutional,” said him.

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams asked the Applicant to revise writing format and the petitum. “In petitum1, it is enough to say ‘grants’, because ‘grants’ is synonymous with ‘accepts’,” said him. (Lulu Hanifah/Prasetyo Adi N)

---