Juridical
Study on the Cancellation of Land Certificate by Proof of Power Endorsement in the Review of Law No. 5 of 1960
concerning the Basis of Agrarian Law (study of decision No. 3/G/2021/PTUN. BDG)
M Agung Purnama
Universitas Padjadjaran, Indonesia
muhammad21186@mail.unpad.ac.id
|
Keywords |
Abstract |
|
Certificate Cancellation, Statement of
Eigendom, Basic Agrarian Law. |
This study
discusses the cancellation of land ownership certificates based on evidence
of verponding eigendom (BEV) in the framework of Indonesian Law, especially
by Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Agrarian Principles. The study aims to
explore the legal basis, procedures, and implications of cancelling land
certificates when administrative defects or court decisions have permanent
legal force. The research method used is normative juridical with a
descriptive approach, analyzing the Rule of Law and the case of Decision
Number 3/G/2021/PTUN case. BDG. The study results show that the certificate
can be cancelled if administrative, legal defects or the ratification of
power are not by the procedure. In addition, court decisions have an
essential role in determining the validity of certificates. The implications
of this study show the importance of strengthening land administration in the
National Land Agency (BPN) to increase legal certainty for landowners and
reduce the potential for ownership conflicts in Indonesia. |
Correspondence Author: M
Agung Purnama
E-mail: muhammad21186@mail.unpad.ac.id
INTRODUCTION
Land is a vital
resource that has an essential role in the lives of the Indonesian people, both
in terms of economy, society, and culture. This makes ownership and land rights
sensitive and vulnerable to disputes. The Indonesian government has issued various
regulations, one of which is Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on
Agrarian Principles, known as the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA), to regulate
agrarian rights and the cancellation of illegal or problematic land
certificates
In practice,
problems related to the cancellation of land rights certificates can arise due
to various factors, including administrative and legal defects, ownership
disputes, or the ratification of questionable power. This can be seen in
several juridical studies and analyses conducted previously. For example, in a
survey conducted regarding the cancellation of land rights certificates due to
administrative and legal defects according to the Regulation of the Minister of
State for Agrarian Affairs/Head of BPN Number 9 of 1999, it was found that
administrative defects can be a valid reason for cancellation if it is proven
that there is negligence on the part of the National Land Agency (BPN). In
addition, other legal studies show the importance of legal protection for land
certificate holders to ensure legal certainty
Cancelling land
certificates becomes more complex when it comes to ownership disputes involving
more than one party claiming the same land rights. The study highlights that
ownership disputes often arise due to differences in understanding of the
evidence of legal ownership, which ultimately requires court intervention. In
this study, the decision of the State Administrative Court (PTUN) is often a
reference in determining the validity and clarity of land ownership status
The problem of
legal certainty regarding land ownership is wider than administrative defects
or owner disputes. The Basic Agrarian Law provides a solid legal basis for
every citizen to own land rights. However, land registration and issuance of
rights certificates still need to overcome various obstacles. Ayunda emphasized
the importance of legal certainty through certificates as authentic evidence of
land ownership rights. However, many cases show that certificates issued only
after a valid process have the potential to be revoked by the PTUN if
administrative irregularities or proof of double ownership are found (
For example,
decision Number 15/G/2021/PTUN. PTK, based on Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning
State Administrative Courts in Pontianak City, shows that the judiciary has the
authority to decide the validity of land certificates based on existing
evidence. In this context, judicial authorities play an essential role in
resolving land disputes related to certificates issued by BPN
On the other
hand, land ownership disputes caused by multiple ownership are complex legal
issues. His research on the decision of PTUN Number 103/G/2016/PTUN-BDG shows
that PTUN can cancel the land certificate if it is proven that a new
certificate submission overlaps with the previous certificate. This shows that
the role of the PTUN in deciding the cancellation of land certificates is vital
to protect the rights of the rightful owners and prevent further conflicts
Another case that
shows this complexity is the cancellation of 605 land certificates in the Batam
Authority Area, which was discussed by. In this case, the court cancelled the
land certificate due to ambiguity in the issuance process. This shows that in
addition to land rights, other essential elements are of concern in the Basic
Agrarian Law, namely the guarantee of the correctness of physical and juridical
data in land rights certificates
In some cases,
certificates issued by BPN are often used as proof of legal land ownership.
However, further studies show that land certificates only sometimes guarantee
the validity of ownership if other evidence shows legal defects. This problem
becomes even more complicated when there is a claim to land supported by
evidence of the ratification of power that needs to be by the procedure. The
replacement certificate is often disputed because not all parties can accept
the replacement procedure as valid evidence
An in-depth
juridical study of the cancellation of land certificates due to administrative
and legal defects, multiple ownership disputes, and negligence in the
certificate issuance process shows the importance of transparent and
accountable governance in BPN. This is also strengthened by the provisions in
the UUPA that give the community the right to own and control land legally.
This study will
further review the mechanism for cancelling land certificates, especially
related to evidence of power ratification in the context of Decision Number
3/G/2021/PTUN. BDG. This research will discuss the legal basis for cancelling
land certificates by referring to the UUPA and relevant court decisions. By
looking at the role of the PTUN in reviewing the validity or not of a land
certificate based on existing administrative evidence, this research is
expected to make an essential contribution to strengthening legal certainty for
land owners and authorities.
In particular,
this study seeks to answer several key questions, including: What is the legal
basis for the cancellation of land certificates issued without legal
procedures? How does the procedure for cancelling certificates by the PTUN
impact legal certainty for legal landowners? This research is expected to
provide insight for policymakers and stakeholders in understanding the
importance of the correct administrative process in issuing land certificates
to avoid disputes in the future.
RESEARCH
METHOD
This study uses a
normative juridical approach method with descriptive specifications. This
method aims to analyze the applicable legal rules related to the cancellation
of land certificates based on evidence of power ratification in the perspective
of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles (UUPA)
and decision Number 3/G/2021/PTUN. BDG.
The normative
juridical approach is a method that focuses on the study of applicable legal
rules and principles that underlie regulations and court decisions related to
the cancellation of land certificates. This method explores various primary and
secondary legal sources to understand the legal framework governing the
legalization of power and the issuance of land rights certificates. Primary
legal sources in this study include Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic
Regulations on Agrarian Principles, Regulation of the Minister of State for
Agrarian Affairs/Head of the National Land Agency Number 9 of 1999, Decision of
the State Administrative Court Number 3/G/2021/PTUN. BDG. Meanwhile, secondary
legal sources include relevant legal literature, such as journals, books,
articles, and other scientific publications supporting juridical analysis of
land certificates' revocation.
This descriptive
approach describes the related decision's legal facts, applicable regulations,
and legal principles. The purpose is to provide a comprehensive overview of how
agrarian Law is implemented in cases of cancellation of land certificates and how
the court assesses evidence of the legalization of power in determining the
validity of land certificates.
Data collection
is carried out through library research, which is collecting legal data through
legal documents such as laws and regulations, court decisions, and other legal
documents. Data from these sources were analyzed to gain an in-depth understanding
of the juridical context of the cancellation of land certificates that are the
object of research.
The collected
data is analyzed using the qualitative analysis method, where relevant data
from court decisions, legal regulations, and supporting literature will be
analyzed in depth to obtain conclusions related to this research. The analysis
process is carried out by interpreting the content and substance of the
applicable legal rules and aligning them with the findings of the court
decision in this case. This qualitative analysis aims to understand the extent
to which legal rules are applied in the context of the cancellation of land
certificates and how the application is in line or not with the principles of
agrarian Law regulated in the UUPA.
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Basis for Cancellation of Land
Certificate
The legal basis used by the Plaintiff is Article
52, paragraph (1) of Law Number 9 of 2004 concerning the State Administrative
Court, which states, "A person or civil legal entity the State
Administrative Decision has harmed his interestsrative Decision may file a
written lawsuit to the competent court which contains a demand that the
disputed State Administrative Decision be declared null and void or
invalid, with or without compensation
or rehabilitation claims."
Acte Van
Eigendom, Eigendom Verponding Number 6391,
proves that the legal owner of the land is Raden Ardisasmita (deceased), and
the Plaintiff is his heir. The ownership of a
quo land comes from buying and selling activities by Frans August Witbols Feugen and Raden Ardisasmita (deceased). Raden
Ardisasmita (deceased) never transferred or sold the land object to another
party. Even today, the land object is still recorded on the map of Pasir Impun
Village by Eimendom Verponding Number
6391 in the name of Raden Ardisasmita.
The Defendant has issued a Certificate of
Ownership of the Land in Question issued by the Bandung City Land Office
registered in the name of PT Global Kurnia Grahatama, which comes from the
Certificate of Rights Number 736 / Pasir Impun Village which was last recorded
in the name of Handi Wijaya, initially from the Certificate of Ownership Number
1 / Tjikadut Village in the name of Frans
August Witbols Feugen and the last was recorded in the name of Raden Atang
Prawirsasra. The certificate issued by Defendant included the Plaintiff's land
in its entirety. It was included in the Certificate of Property Rights of
Building Rights Number 34/Pasir Impun without rights and contrary to the Law.
Articles 37-38 of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning
the Agrarian Constitution stipulate that the use of land or the granting of the
right of use for construction must be carried out in the form of an authentic
agreement between the owner of the land concerned and the party who will obtain
the right and is based on the requirement that the right must be registered by
the provisions of Article 19 of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning the Agrarian
Constitution. Issuing the Certificate of Building Rights issued by the Defendant
violates Article 19 paragraph (2a) concerning land mapping and bookkeeping. It
is proven that part of the land plot covering an area of 42,780 m2 belongs to
the Plaintiff, as evidenced by Acte Van
Eigendom, Eigendom Verponding Number 6391, in the name of Raden Ardisasmita
and has never been purchased by PT Global Kurnia Grahatana. Regarding the
Certificate of Ownership, which is the basis of the Certificate of Building
Ownership, it also has a legal defect that is contrary to Article 21 paragraph
1 of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning the Basis of Agrarian Law which states that
only Indonesian citizens can have property rights, because Frans August Witbols Feugen not an Indonesian citizen based on the
Certificate of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of
Indonesia dated January 12, 2021 Number AHU.4.AH.10.01910.
Proof of Eigendom Verponding as Proof of
Certificate Cancellation
The right of
Verponding Eigendom can be
transferred to property rights through a conversion process by Article 1
Paragraph (1) of the Second Part of the UUPA, which states that the Right of Verponding Eigendom over
land can become property rights with the provisions contained in Article 21 of
Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning the Basic Law of Agrarian Affairs. Based on this
legal basis, the one who is most entitled to have a Certificate of Ownership is
Raden Ardisasmita (deceased) because Frans
August Witbols Feugen did not meet the requirements listed in Article 21 of
Law No.5 of 1960 concerning the Legal Basis of Agrarian Law.
Eigendom
Verponding is one of the
vital pieces of evidence, as stated in Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning the Basis
of Agrarian Law, which states that the State provides legal certainty and
protection for landowners. Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning the Basic Law of
Agrarian Affairs also mandates state recognition of proof of ownership of
former eigendom. Even though this right is no longer active, Eigendom Verponding is still legal
evidence of the land owned.
The conversion of Eigendom Verponding's rights into property rights can only be
done on September 24, 1980, and if the rights have yet to be transferred at
that time, then the rights will end, and the State will directly control the
land. Frans August Witbols Feugen is
still an Indonesian citizen and cannot apply to convert his Eigendom Verponding rights into proprietary rights. However, in
this case, on December 15, 1964, a certificate of Property Rights Number
1/Tjikadut Village was issued in the name of Frans August Witbols Feugen,
contrary to the Law.
The evidence
of Eigendom Verponding owned by the heirs of Raden Ardisasmita (deceased)
can be vital in this case. It can be a clear legal basis for the process of
land conversion and recognition, even though it has not been registered as a
Certificate of Ownership because the registration of Certificate of Ownership
Number 736/Tjikadut Village in the name of Frans August Witbols Feugen has an
administrative legal defect by Article 1 Paragraph (14) of the Ministerial
Regulation Agrarian / Head of the National Land Agency No. 9 of 1999 which
states that the cancellation of land rights certificates can be carried out if
there is an administrative legal defect. 9 of 1999 states that the cancellation
of land rights certificates can be carried out when there is an administrative
legal defect in its issuance.
Implications of Decree Number
3/G/2021/PTUN. BDG
The Judges'
Consideration stated that the Defendant had been guilty of issuing a
Certificate of Property Rights to Frans August Witbols Feugen, which did not
pay attention to the citizenship status, which was also related to the
conversion provisions listed in Article I paragraph (1) of the Conversion
Provisions in the UUPA so that Eigendom
Verponding Number 6391 changed the status of land rights from property
rights to state land after the enactment of the UUPA.
Based on Decree
Number 3/G/2021/PTUN. BDG, it was stated that the Defendant violated the
provisions of the applicable laws in issuing Objectum litis because it did not conduct a correct land history
research as stated in Article 53 paragraph (2) of Law Number 9 of 2004
concerning the State Administrative Court, the decision has implications for Objectum litis The certificate was
crossed out from the list of land books at the Bandung City Land Office.
Therefore, the Certificate of Building Ownership Number: 34/Pasir Impun
registered in the name of PT Global Kurnia Grahatama was cancelled, and the
Defendant bore all court costs.
In this case, the
decision of the State Administrative Court has applied Article 38, paragraph 2
of the UUPA, which states that land registration is strong evidence to be able
to abolish the right to use the building so that it is in line with the judge's
decision that states that the Defendant is guilty because there is an
administrative defect in the land registration that occurred. Therefore, the
right to use the building must be revoked due to illegal land registration,
issuance of a Certificate of Ownership and transfer of land.
Land Certificate Cancellation Problem
Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning the Agrarian
Constitution states that land ownership is based on land registration. In
practice, land registration is a problem that occurs continuously. In this case
study, land registration into a Certificate of Ownership is carried out by the
person who first registered the land. Meanwhile, the evidence of Eigendom Verponding belonging to Raden
Ardisasmita (deceased) is concrete evidence, as evidenced by the sale and
purchase transaction between Frans August Witbols Feugen and Raden Ardisasmita
(deceased). However, when the land registration had not been registered or
changed to a Certificate of Ownership by Raden Ardisasmita (deceased), the land
was registered by Frans August Witbols.
Starting from the Certificate of Property Rights
Number 736 / Tjikadut Village in the name of Frans August Witbols Feugen and
until several changes to the last one becoming a Copyright Certificate that
causes losses to the owner. The Certificate of Rights Has a Fatal
Administrative Law Defect because it does not meet the requirements listed in
the UUPA for land ownership requirements in Indonesia. Article 21, paragraph
(4) states that a person with foreign nationality cannot own land if the
inheritance is without a will or a mixture of assets due to marriage, and the
right to the land will be revoked, and the land will fall to the State.
The problem with the cancellation of land
certificates is that the evidence still needs to be in the form of Eigendom Verponding, which should have
been converted before the specified time. In addition, the transfer of land
ownership carried out by Frans August Witbols Feugen traced the history of this
land branch. However, the recording carried out in Pasir Impun Village is one
of the solutions in determining the location of Eigendom Verponding No. 6391, which is a land object according to
the attachment of Acte Van Eigendom,
Eigendom Verponding No. 6391 in the name of Raden Ardisasmita.
One of the
considerations of the Panel of Judges in this decision is also the 5-year
deadline to file an objection to the issuance of the certificate and not to
file a lawsuit to the court regarding the certificate regulated in Article 32
Paragraph 2 of Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 concerning Land
Registration. However, a comparison is made with Article 55 of Law No. 5 of
1986 concerning the State Administrative Court. In this particular case, it is
not the 5-year period that is the focus, but the ownership of land rights and
issuing certificates violating laws and regulations. Thus, the Defendant was
found guilty.
CONCLUSION
The study
concludes that the cancellation of land certificates in Indonesia can occur due
to administrative legal defects, which include non-compliance with issuance
procedures, inaccurate measurements, or inappropriate owner data. The case in
decision Number 3/G/2021/PTUN. The BDG points out that Eigendom Verponding as
proof of ownership has significant legal force in supporting the validity of
land claims, especially compared to certificates issued without due process.
The PTUN, in this case, emphasizes the role of the land certificate as
authentic evidence that must meet all administrative requirements to provide
legal certainty for the owner.
This research
underscores the importance of strengthening administrative governance at the
National Land Agency (BPN) so that each land certificate is issued according to
legal procedures, ultimately reducing the potential for ownership conflicts.
The PTUN decision, in this case, provides an important precedent for similar
land disputes, reminding us that the issuance of land certificates must be
based on proof of legal ownership and by applicable legal provisions. Thus,
this study confirms that the cancellation of certificates by the State
Administrative Court in the context of evidence of the ratification of
legitimate power is an essential step in strengthening legal certainty and
protecting the rights of legal landowners in Indonesia.
REFERENCE
Chairunnisa, N. I.
(2021). Juridical Analysis of the Cancellation of the Certificate of
Replacement of Land Ownership (Study of Decision Number 52/G/10/PTUN. MTR). [Thesis].
University of Jember.
Mara, A. (2016).
Guarantee of Physical and Juridical Data Correctness in Land Rights
Certificates (Case Study in Semarang City). Diponegoro Law Journal, 5(3).
Mahendra, R. (2019).
Juridical Analysis of the Cancellation of Rights to Land Certificates by the
State Administrative Court Due to Multiple Ownership Disputes (Analysis Study
of Decision Number 103/G/2016/PTUN-BDG).: Journal of Law, 3(2). ASK ORKG
Oktariana, T. A.
(2022). Juridical Analysis of Decision Number 15/G/2021/PTUN. PTK is based on
Law Number 51 of 2009 concerning the State Administrative Court of Pontianak
City—Journal of Legal Fatwa.
Rachmawati, R. D.
(2019). Authority of the Judiciary in the Cancellation of Land Certificates.
URECOL Proceedings 9. UNIMMA.
Rachmawati, R. D.
(2019). Problems of Cancellation of 605 Land Certificates in the Batam
Authority Area (Study of the Decision of the Tanjung Pinang State
Administrative Court No. 15/G/2014/PTUN. TPI). Journal of Law, 7(3).
Rachmawati, R. D.
(2020). Juridical Analysis of the Cancellation of Property Rights Certificate
Number 00809/Pasir Gunung Selatan Village. Thesis, Trisakti University.
Trisakti Repository
Rachmawati, R. D.
(2020). Cancellation of Land Rights Certificate Due to BPN's Negligence and as
the Executor of Court Decisions. Journal of Law, 6(1).
Rachmawati, R. D.
(2022). Cancellation of Land Rights Certificate Due to Administrative Law
Defects According to the Regulation of the Minister of State for Agrarian
Affairs/Head of BPN Number 9 of 1999. FIAT IUSTITIA: Journal of Law, 2(1).
Rachmawati, R. D.
(2021). Cancellation of Land Rights Certificate Due to BPN's Negligence and as
the Executor of Court Decisions. Journal of Law, 5(2). Garuda Ministry of
Education and Culture
Rachmawati, R. D.
(2020). The certificate of ownership of land rights is authentic evidence
according to Law No. 5 of 1960. Journal of Law, 6(1). Neliti
Rachmawati, R. D.
(2020). Land Certificate: Validity, Use and Weakness in Indonesia's Land Law
System. Jurisprudential: Journal of Law, 2(1). Jurisprudential
Rahadi, B. A. (2014).
Juridical study of abandoned land based on Law Number 5 of 1960 concerning
Basic Regulations on Agrarian Principles. Thesis, University of Jember.
Repository UNEJ
Official, P. (2021).
Juridical Analysis of Land Ownership Certificates Cancellation Due to Land
Rights Ownership Disputes (Study of Decision Number 1590 K/Pdt/2020.PN Dmk).
Thesis, Sultan Agung Islamic University. UNISSULA Repository
Saleh, A. A. (2022).
Juridical Analysis of the Cancellation of Land Title Certificates Due to Land
Rights Ownership Disputes (Study of Decision No. 08/Pdt.G/2020/PN.Psw).
Thesis, Sultan Agung Islamic University. UNISSULA Repository
Srykandy, A. (2020).
Juridical Analysis of the Legal Certainty of Land Rights Ownership Based on
Law Number 5 of 1960. Journal of Law, 5(2).