Condotel Owners Question Phrase in Condominium Law
if($news->) Image

The Petitioners of the material judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2011 on Condominium appearing before the Court virtually, Wednesday (6/8/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Panji.

Wednesday, June 8, 2022 | 15:35 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of Law No. 20 of 2011 on Condominium on Wednesday, June 8, 2022. The case No. 62/PUU-XX/2022 was filed by owners of a condotel (condominium-hotel) Rini Wulandari, Hesti Br Ginting, Ir. Budiman Widyatmoko, and Kristyawan Dwibhakti (Petitioners I-IV). They challenged Article 50 of the Condominium Law, which reads, “The use of multi-story buildings shall be conducted in accordance with the function: a. residence; or b. mix-use.”

Before panel chair Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and members of the panel, the Petitioners’ legal counsel Aulia Khasanofa said the Petitioners owned a condominium in the form of a condotel unit.

“A condotel has the same ownership concept as flats, namely ‘a multi-story building built in an environment that is divided into functionally structured parts,’” she said.

The Condominium Law, she added, stipulates that condotels not be used for residential or mixed purposes, thus keeping the Petitioners to form a Condominium Owner and Tenant Association (PPPSRS) to deal with the interests of the owners and residents in terms of management, ownership, and occupancy. This led to the property (the multi-story unit complete with communal parts, objects, and land) not being owned by the Petitioners but the developer.

In addition, the Petitioners argued that the condotel that is not functioned for residence or mix-use results in theirs not being able to be issued a certificate of condominium unit ownership for.

Then, in their petition, the Petitioners asserted that the provisions on the use of condominiums only for residential and mixed functions, regulated explicitly in Article 50 of the Condominium Law, were detrimental to their constitutional rights. Thus, based on those reasons, they asked that the Court declare Article 50 of the Condominium Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted as including “not a residence.”

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih advised the Petitioners to revise the Court’s authority by adding an elaboration of the law and to address the posita, which concerned unfulfilled rights. “I leave it to you completely. I cannot drive it, as it is the Petitioners’ domain. Most importantly, evidence must be added,” she said.

She also requested that the Petitioners elaborate on the petitums to avoid contradictions between them.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams advised the legal counsel to take into account the procedural law of the Constitutional Court. “I think it should be taken into account,” he stressed. He also advised them to revise the petitums’ format.

Before concluding the hearing, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh informed the Petitioners that they were given 14 workdays to revise the petition. The revised petition must be submitted to the Registrar’s Office by June 21.

Writer       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 6/9/2022 08:26 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

Wednesday, June 08, 2022 | 15:35 WIB 169
  • Budi Wibowo Halim (Pemohon) menyampaikan pokok-pokok perbaikan atas permohonan Perkara Nomor 117/PUU-XXI/2023. Foto Humas/Ifa

    Image 1
  • Majelis Sidang Panel yang di ketuai oleh Hakim Konstitusi Enny Nurbaningsih. Foto Humas/Fauzan

    Image 2