Legal Literacy - In land disputes, the disputing parties sometimes mistakenly determine the judicial institution authorized to adjudicate the case. Specifically, the parties mistakenly determine whether they will file a case with the general court (“PNâ€) or the state administrative court (“PTUNâ€).
This error can have fatal consequences, namely that the lawsuit filed becomes inadmissible (Niet Ontvankelijke Verklaard). This is due to the absence of a basis of authority for the court to examine the case. We can see this phenomenon through a handful of cases.
The first case is found in Decision No. 102/1992/TN/P.TUN.JKT. Here, the panel of judges ruled that the Plaintiff's claim was misaddressed and therefore inadmissible. The reason was that the Plaintiff questioned the limitation of ownership rights to the area of the disputed land. The panel of judges considered that it was a civil case which was the jurisdiction of the PN.
The next case is found in Decision No. 59/Pdt.G/2016/PN.Sda. In this case, the panel of judges stated that the claim filed by the Plaintiff was misaddressed. The court was not authorized to examine the case because the evaluation of the validity of the governor's decision which was the object of the dispute was the jurisdiction of the PTUN.
What causes the PN and PTUN to reach land disputes? How do you distinguish the authority of both to resolve conflicts? This article will answer that question.
The Tangent of District Court and State Administrative Court
In adjudicating land disputes, the authority of the PN and PTUN has its own context. Through Letter from the Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for Judicial Affairs No. 6/WK.MA.Y/II/2020 ("WMA Letter"), the Supreme Court argued that the distinction is as follows.
- If the land dispute concerns the authority, procedure, and substance in the issuance of a letter granting land rights and/or a certificate of land rights, then it is within the authority of the State Administrative Court to examine and resolve it.
- If the land dispute concerns ownership of land rights, then it is within the authority of the General Court.
Several experts state that the indicator to differentiate the scope of authority of the District Court and the State Administrative Court in land conflicts is the certificate of land rights.
According to Sarjita and Hasan in the book Cancellation and Nullity of Land Rights, the certificate touches on the aspects of authority of the District Court and the State Administrative Court simultaneously because the certificate contains civil aspects as well as administrative aspects.
The civil aspect of the certificate lies in the land rights arising from the certificate. Here, the emphasis is on the rights based on the certificate, and these rights are regulated in the laws and regulations in the field of land affairs. If the land conflict concerns the existence of these rights, the conflict is resolved through the District Court.
The administrative aspect of the certificate lies in the decision (beschikking) of the authorized official to issue the certificate. Here, the emphasis is on the certificate itself, which exists based on the laws and regulations in the field of administration. If the land conflict concerns the existence of the certificate, the conflict is resolved through the State Administrative Court. Resolution through the State Administrative Court can also include land conflicts involving the government, such as land disputes in land acquisition for toll roads.
Aridi and Natsir Asnawi, in the journal article Limits of the Court's Authority in Land Rights Disputes, explain that to determine the authority of the District Court and the State Administrative Court in land conflicts, using the certificate of land rights alone is not enough. The disputing parties also need to pay attention to the connection between the certificate and the core of the case.
If the certificate becomes the basis of the dispute of rights in the land conflict, the case that occurs between the parties is a civil case that must be resolved through the District Court. Meanwhile, if the certificate becomes the object in the land conflict, the case that occurs between the parties is an administrative case that must be resolved through the State Administrative Court.
It is easy to understand that the focus of the District Court lies on the land rights arising from the certificate, while the focus of the State Administrative Court lies on the existence of the certificate itself.
In adjudicating land conflicts, the District Court will tend to examine the ins and outs of the land rights originating from the certificate. For example, the District Court will evaluate the history of the land status or who holds the land rights. The focus of the District Court is the legal relationship between the disputing parties and the basis for the existence of the certificate.
In contrast to the District Court, in adjudicating land conflicts, the State Administrative Court will examine the administrative procedures for the issuance of the certificate. For example, the State Administrative Court will evaluate whether the certificate was issued by an authorized official, issued in accordance with its intended use, or issued in an improper manner.
Comments (0)
Write a comment