[ABSTRAK
Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Keputusan Mahkamah Agung Republik Indonesia (MA-RI)No. 125K/TUN/2004 tertanggal 20 Pebruari 2006 yang telah berkekuatan hukumtetap,tidak berjalan dengan semestinya. Putusan yang terkait dengan sengketa tanahterletak di Kelurahan Sriwedari, Kecamatan Laweyan, Kota Surakarta - yang sejaktahun 2000 dikuasai oleh Pemerintah Daerah Kotamadya Surakarta (Pemerintah KotaSolo) secara yuridis dan fisik -dimenangkan oleh ahli waris almarhum Raden MasTumenggung (RMT) Wirdjodiningrat,sampai dengan April 2010 belum juga dapatdilaksanakan. Keputusan MA-RI tahun 2006 tersebut membatalkan eksistensi dariSertipikat No.11 dan 15/Kelurahan Sriwedari yang diterbitkan oleh Badan PertanahanNasional Republik Indonesia pada tahun 2000.Oleh karena putusan MA-RI sudahberkekuatan hukum tetap, seharusnya secara administratifBadan Pertanahan Nasional(BPN) tinggal melaksanakan pembatalan kedua sertipikat tersebut agar dapatmemberikan kepastian hukum bagi pemegang haknya. Upaya hukum yang bisadilakukan oleh para ahliwaris alm. RMT Wirdjodiningrat saat ini adalah denganmelaksanakan ketentuan pasal 55 ayat 2, pasal 57 Perka No. 3 Tahun 2011. Biladalam waktu 2 bulan sejak permohonan diajukan oleh para ahliwaris tidakdilaksanakan dengan sukarela oleh BPN, maka upaya hukum yang disarankan untukditempuh adalah: (1) meminta Gubernur/Menteri Dalam Negeri/Presiden RepublikIndonesia untuk mengosongkan tanah sengketa menggunakan ketentuan pasal 4 UUNo.51 PRP Tahun 1960; (2) melaporkan PemKot Solo (Pemerintah Daerah KodyaSurakarta) kepada Komisi Ombudsman berdasarkan UU No.37 Tahun 2008; (3)Melaporkan kepada Komnas HAM sesuai UU No. 26 Tahun 2000 karena hakasasinya atas tanah miliknya dilanggar oleh PemKot Solo.ABSTRACT
The enforcement of Supreme Court?s Decision number 125k/TUN/2004 datedFebruary 20, 2006, which is legal and binding, did not well executed as planned. Thedecision in regard to land dispute situated in Sriwedari Village, Laweyan Subdistrict,Surakarta ? which since year 2000 has been under the possession of SurakartaRegional Government (Solo Local Government) physically and juristically ? that wassecured in favor of the heir of Raden Mas Tumenggung (RMT) Wirjodiningrat, upuntil now was still not being carried out. The Supreme Court?s Decision of year 2006nullified the prevailing Certificate number 11 and number 15 of Sriwedari Villageissued by the Republic of Indonesia National Land Agency on the year 2000. Basedon the fact that the Supreme Court?s Decision is final and binding, the National LandAgency of Republik of Indonesia is administratively obliged to execute theannulment of the two certificates in order to provide legal certainty to the heir ofRMT Wirjodiningrat as the title right bearer. Remedy the heirs of RMTWirjodiningrat can seek is to achieve Article 55 Paragraph 2, Article 57 Head ofNational Land Agency Regulation Number 3 Year 2011. Provided that within 2 (two)months period since the appeal is filed by the heirs, and the National Land Agencystill dismisses such appeal, the remedies advisable to pursue are: (1) to request theGovernor/Minister of Domestic Affairs/President of the Republic of Indonesia toevacuate land in dispute exercising the provision of Article 4 Law Number 51Substitute for Government Regulation Law Year 1960; (2) to report Solo LocalGovernment (Surakarta Regional Government) to the Ombudsman Commission inaccordance to Law Number 37 Year 2008; (3) to report to the National Commissionof Human Rights in accordance to Law Number 26 Year 2000 based on the fact that ahuman right on a land was violated by the Solo Local Government., The enforcement of Supreme Court’s Decision number 125k/TUN/2004 datedFebruary 20, 2006, which is legal and binding, did not well executed as planned. Thedecision in regard to land dispute situated in Sriwedari Village, Laweyan Subdistrict,Surakarta – which since year 2000 has been under the possession of SurakartaRegional Government (Solo Local Government) physically and juristically – that wassecured in favor of the heir of Raden Mas Tumenggung (RMT) Wirjodiningrat, upuntil now was still not being carried out. The Supreme Court’s Decision of year 2006nullified the prevailing Certificate number 11 and number 15 of Sriwedari Villageissued by the Republic of Indonesia National Land Agency on the year 2000. Basedon the fact that the Supreme Court’s Decision is final and binding, the National LandAgency of Republik of Indonesia is administratively obliged to execute theannulment of the two certificates in order to provide legal certainty to the heir ofRMT Wirjodiningrat as the title right bearer. Remedy the heirs of RMTWirjodiningrat can seek is to achieve Article 55 Paragraph 2, Article 57 Head ofNational Land Agency Regulation Number 3 Year 2011. Provided that within 2 (two)months period since the appeal is filed by the heirs, and the National Land Agencystill dismisses such appeal, the remedies advisable to pursue are: (1) to request theGovernor/Minister of Domestic Affairs/President of the Republic of Indonesia toevacuate land in dispute exercising the provision of Article 4 Law Number 51Substitute for Government Regulation Law Year 1960; (2) to report Solo LocalGovernment (Surakarta Regional Government) to the Ombudsman Commission inaccordance to Law Number 37 Year 2008; (3) to report to the National Commissionof Human Rights in accordance to Law Number 26 Year 2000 based on the fact that ahuman right on a land was violated by the Solo Local Government.] |
T44138-Susi Aliani.pdf :: Unduh