Two Experts presented by Applicant Yusril Ihza Mahendra and Neng Djubaedah deliver testimony at judicial review session on Act of Agrarian Basic Regulations and Act of Marriage, on Thursday (27/8) at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR/Ganie
Civil law expert of Universitas Indonesia Neng Djubaedah says marriage agreement allowed in several law; western law, customary law, and religion law. According to her, marriage agreement could be made during married, not just before married.
Djubaedah delivers her statement during Expert’s testimony hearing in judicial review on Act Number 5 Year 1960 of Agrarian Basic Regulations (Undang-Undang Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria –UU Agraria) and Act Number 1 Year 1974 of Marriage (Undang-Undang Perkawinan –UU Perkawinan), on Thursday (27/8), at Plenary Room, the Constitutional Court Building. On the session led by Deputy Chief Justice Anwar Usman, Djubaedah says marriage agreement has been regulated in Chapter 7 of the Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata), particularly on Article 139 until Article 154.
Based on Islamic law, Djubaedah quotes Sayuti Thalib’s opinion which saying marriage agreement regarding distributive property (syirkah) is divided into three kinds. The first is written agreement or agreement declared before or after marriage ceremony (akad nikah), either regarding individual property, respective property through inheritance, or property gathered.
The second is, the agreement could be determined by law or legislation; joint property is property and wealth gathered by one of the couple or by both cooperatively during married. “The third is, according to Sayuti Thalib, the agreement between married couple may be conducted during married,” said Djubaedah at the session of Case Number 69/PUU-XIII/2015.
Moreover, Djubaedah explains West Java customary law enable property separation between married couple during married. Regarding the limitation period of agreement making which only allowed before the wedding in Article 29 (1) Act of Marriage, property separation might be conducted during married in accordance with customary law. “Therefore, Article 29 (1) Act of Marriage needs to be reconsidered,” said her.
As Applicant’s Expert, Djubaedah suggests Article 29 (1) Act a quo shall be interpreted ‘During wedding, before wedding, or during marriage, the couple shall conduct written agreement under mutual consent which ratified by marriage registrar employees, in which the content of agreement also applied to third party along the third party involved’ (‘Pada waktu, atau sebelum, atau selama 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 29 (1) Act of Marriage stated ‘During or before wedding conducted, the couple shall conduct written agreement under mutual consent which ratified by marriage registrar employees, in which the content of agreement also applied to third party along the third party involved’ (‘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’ )
According to Djubaedah, Article 29 (3) Act of Marriage shall be interpreted ‘The agreement begins in effect since the marriage conducted unless it stipulates the otherwise’ (‘Perjanjian tersebut mulai berlaku sejak perkawinan dilangsungkan kecuali ditentukan lain dalam perjanjian perkawinan’).
Article 29 (3) Act of Marriage stated ‘The agreement begins in effect since the marriage conducted’ (‘Perjanjian tersebut mulai berlaku sejak perkawinan dilangsungkan’).
Meanwhile, Djubaedah argues Article 29 (4) Act a quo shall be interpreted ‘During married, marriage agreement regarding joint property or other agreement points cannot be changed or removed unless there is agreement from both couples to change or remove agreement points; the changing or removal shall not harmed the third party’ (‘Selama perkawinan berlangsung, perjanjian perkawinan mengenai harta perkawinan atau perjanjian lainnya tidak dapat diubah atau dicabutkecuali bila dari kedua belah pihak ada persetujuan untuk mengubah atau mencabut dan perubahan atau pencabutan itu tidak merugikan pihak ketiga’).
Article 29 (4) Act of Marriage stated ‘During married, marriage agreement cannot be changed or removed unless there is agreement from both couples to change or remove agreement points; agreement changing or removal shall not harmed third party’ (‘Selama perkawinan berlangsung perjanjian tersebut tidak dapat diubah kecuali bila dari kedua belah pihak ada persetujuan untuk mengubah dan perubahan itu tidak merugikan pihak ketiga’)
At last, Djubaedah argues the phrase ‘property gathered during married’ (‘Harta benda yang diperoleh selama perkawinan’) in Article 35 (1) Act of Marriage shall be interpreted ‘joint property exclude property regarding freehold and building right title (hak milik dan hak guna bangunan) for Indonesian citizens who married with foreigners, only Indonesian citizens’ rights prevailed in accordance with nationality principle and not detrimental to foreigners’ rights as stipulated by law’ (‘harta bersama kecuali mengenai hak milik atas tanah dan hak guna bangunan bagi WNI yang menikah dengan WNA hanya hak WNI dengan tetap menetapkan asas nasionalitas dan tidak merugikan hak-hak WNA di Indonesia sesuai peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku’).
Ambiguous Phrases
Meanwhile, state administrative law professor of Universitas Indonesia Yusril Ihza Mahendra says the provision of Article 35 (1) Act of Marriage has multiple interpretations, particularly in the phrase ‘becomes joint property’ (‘menjadi harta bersama’). He questions whether the phrase referred has similar meaning or applied mutatis mutandis with the norm in Article 21 and Article 36 Act of Agrarian Basic Regulations.
“The provision needs interpretation; I think the Court is wise enough to interpret both legal norms in two different Acts which also formulated in different time –in 1960 and in 1974 and linked with the provisions in the 1945 Constitution,” said him.
Yusril quotes Article 28B the 1945 Constitution which stated ‘Every person shall have the right to establish a family and to procreate based upon lawful marriage’ (‘Setiap orang berhak membentuk keluarga dan melanjutkan keturunan melalui perkawinan yang sah’) and Article 28H (4) which stated ‘Every person shall have the right to own personal property, and such property may not be unjustly held possession of by any party’ (‘Setiap orang berhak, mempunyai hak milik pribadi dan hak milik tersebut tidak boleh diambil secara sewenang-wenang oleh siapa pun’). He also questions the provision in Article 21 (3) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulations which regulates the possibility of foreigners’ property right due to non-intestate inheritance (pewarisan tanpa wasiat) or mixing property as a result of marriage.
“Likewise Indonesian citizens who have property rights and lost their nationality after the enactment of this Act, they shall redeem their right within one year since the right granted or since the nationality loss. Their property right is removed by law and their lands considered as State land if their property right not removed within one year,” said him.
Thus, Yusril as Applicant’s Expert requests the Constitutional Court to provide interpretation regarding property granted during married which considered as joint property. “So, joint property turns into property right if the marriage ended, either by divorce or one of the couple pass away. Thus, the provision in Article 21 (3) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulation could be applied,” added him.
Previously, Ike Farida as Applicant reviews provisions in Article 21 (1) and (3), Article 36 (1) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulations and Article 29 (1), (3), and (4), and Article 35 (1) Act of Marriage. According to the Applicant, the provisions aforementioned have removed her rights to grant Freehold and Building Right Title (Hak Milik dan Hak Guna Bangunan). It because the apartment purchasing treaty conducted by the Applicant is unilaterally cancelled by the developer because her husband is foreigner and the Applicant has no marriage agreement. The Applicant argues the purchasing cancellation justified by East Jakarta District Court decision (Penetapan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Timur) saying the cancellation of order letter is a result of unfulfilling objective validity terms of an agreement, which is a violation to Article 36 (1) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulations
“It can be concluded that Applicant’s right to own apartment wiped out by the enactment of articles in Act of Agrarian Basic Regulations and Act of Marriage,” said her at preliminary session on Thursday (11/6).
In the petitum, the Applicant requests the Court to declare the phrase ‘Indonesian citizens’ in Article 21 (1) and Article 36 (1) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulations contrary to the Constitution and have no legal binding if it isn’t interpreted ‘an individual Indonesian citizen without exception’ (warga negara Indonesia tunggal tanpa terkecuali).
Moreover, the Applicant requests the Court to declare the phrase ‘during granted the right’ (‘sejak diperoleh hak’) in Article 21 (3) Act of Agrarian Basic Regulations contrary to the Constitution and has no legal binding if it isn’t interpreted ‘since the right transferred’ (‘sejak kepemilikan hak beralih’).
Regarding Act of Marriage, the Applicant requests the Court to declare Article 29 (3) Act a quo contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no legal binding. The Applicant also requests the Court to declare the phrase ‘during married (‘selama perkawinan berlangsung’) in Article 29 (4) Act a quo contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no legal binding.
At last, the Applicant requests the Court to declare the phrase ‘joint property’ (‘harta bersama’) in Article 35 (1) Act of Marriage contrary to the 1945 Constitution and has no legal binding if it isn’t interpreted ‘joint property exclude property regarding freehold and building right title owned by Indonesian citizens who married with foreigners’ (‘harta bersama kecuali harta benda berupa Hak Milik dan Hak Guna Bangunan yang dimiliki oleh warga negara Indonesia yang kawin dengan warga negara asing’). (Lulu Hanifah/IR/Prasetyo Adi N)
Thursday, August 27, 2015 | 18:36 WIB 440