JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI - Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) menggelar sidang perbaikan permohonan pengujian Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata, Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 1960 tentang Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria, Undang-Undang Nomor 1 Tahun 1967 tentang Penanaman Modal Asing, dan Undang-Undang Nomor 6 Tahun 1968 tentang Penanaman Modal Dalam Negeri, pada Rabu (13/11/2019). Sidang perkara Nomor 65/PUU-XVII/2019 ini diajukan oleh Achdiat Adiwinata.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Civil Code, the Basic Agrarian Law No. 5 of 1960, Law No. 1 of 1967 on Foreign Capital Investment, and Law No, 6 of 1968 on Domestic Capital Investment on Wednesday (13/11/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. The case No. 65/PUU-XVII/2019 was petitioned by Achdiat Adiwinata.

Achdiat, who was sick, requested to the Court that the petition revision was regarded to have been read. Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams approved the request.

The Petitioner said that he felt disadvantaged by the enactment of Article 842 of the Civil Code and/or Jurisprudence No. 391 K/Sip/1969, Decision of the High Court No. 75/1472/Perd./PT.Bdg and the extrication of rights over land, which was then made by the right-to-build certificate (SGB) on behalf of PT Iman Murni Abadi Nurani, right-to-build certificate and certificate of land ownership (SHM) on the land owned by Adiwinata bin Moersan Persil 110, by the Bandung City Land Office. 

Achdiat explained that he had not been able to accept the Bandung District Court Decision, the Bandung High Court Decision, and the Supreme Court Decision because the Bandung District Court had applied an unclear legal basis. The consideration of the ruling only emphasized the letter of the Principal of SD Nilem II that Tardiah was born in 1947, even though the information was legally flawed because “Atma Widjaja” was handwritten and was legitimate. Therefore, the Petitioner considered that the amendment to the statement was doubtful.

"With the decision of the district court after the decision of the religious court, they overlapped and competed for authority," Achdiat said.

In addition, the Petitioner considered that Bandung District Court, the Bandung High Court, and the Supreme Court not authorized to examine and adjudicate the inheritance of the deceased Adiwinata Bin Moersan, also known as Totong Adiwinata (Totong being a nickname) and (deceased) Soemarni. Tardiah desired to be declared an heir to Adiwinata bin Moersan/Totong Adiwinata, who claimed to be the son of Atma Widjaja Anang Sobandi. The authority to adjudicate marriage, inheritance, will, and grants is under the religion court. (Bayu/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti