Search

Mafia pertanahan masih tumbuh subur seiring dengan tingginya kebutuhan masyarakat akan ketersediaan lahan pertanahan. Dari sejumlah kasus sengketa tanah yang terjadi, baik di kota besar maupun daerah, diduga kuat selalu melibatkan mafia tanah. Selain itu, permasalahan lain yakni adanya oknum-oknum aparat desa terutama lurah yang mengetahui betul status tanah di lingkungannya yang kemudian tergoda dengan bujuk rayu mafia tanah untuk menerbitkan girik atau perfonding palsu dengan dilengkapi surat-surat pendukung lainnya seperti dari RT/RW sampai ke tingkat kecamatan. Metode penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif. Pendekatan yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah dilakukan dengan metode analisis deskriptif analitis tentang penyelesaian sengketa tanah berkaitan dengan sertifikat ganda yang timbul akibat tindak pidana mafia tanah. Teknik pengumpulan bahan hukum dilakukan melalui studi kepustakaan dan analisis bahan-bahan kepustakaan, serta studi penelusuran bahan-bahan internet meliputi artikel-artikel dan jurnal ilmiah yang berkaitan dengan penelitian ini. Setelah ke semua bahan hukum terkumpul, selanjutnya dianalisis dengan teknik deskriptif analitis dan kritis terhadap objek pembahasan yaitu penyelesaian sengketa tanah berkaitan dengan sertifikat ganda yang timbul akibat tindak pidana mafia tanah. Dalam upaya memberantas sertipikat ganda dari praktik mafia tanah, Kementerian ATR/BPN membuat aturan tertulis yaitu Petunjuk Teknis Pencegahan Pemberantasan Mafia Tanah Nomor: 01/JUKNIS/D.VII/2018. Selain itu, Kementerian ATR/BPN juga membentuk Tim Satgas Mafia Tanah dalam rangka memberantas praktik mafia tanah yang berpotensi menimbulkan sertipikat ganda yang didasarkan pada itikad tidak baik.

This study aims to explain how important or urgent the application of the exoneration clause is as a form of self-protection of a notary in carrying out his position in accordance with the law on the position of a notary in which the clause used for notary self-protection against parties who come to a notary who has bad faith or falsify data and so on. This research is normative juridical research, namely research that examines or analyzes based on the sources of legislation and uses a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The results of this study are the need or urgency to apply an exoneration clause or a notary self-protection clause in carrying out his position so that it is not easy for the parties to report a notary, in which the notary in carrying out his position in accordance with the norms and procedures contained in the law on the position of a notary, especially the authority of a notary who contained in Article 15 of the law on the position of a notary, where the application of the clause is valid as long as the notary has carried out the position according to the procedure and is also agreed upon by the parties who appear before the notary.

Article 77 of the Limited Liability Company Law (UUPT) states that the General Meeting of Shareholders (GMS) can be carried out under the hands or circularly or conducted in front of a Notary conducted electronically. In this regard, it will try to provide a new interpretation regarding facing the Notary Public not directly but through other media or other media (devices) that help electronically. Traditionally, facing the Notary Public is done and interpreted physically (face to face), namely "The Viewer sees the Notary and the Witness, then the Notary and the Witness see the Facilitator without other media". The meaning of facing like that has been done hundreds of years until now, with the existence of Article 77 of the Company Law, it is connected with Article 90 of the Company Law, namely if the GMS can be held before a Notary Public or before a Notary electronically. The substance of the article has changed the meaning of facing a notary public in the traditional (physical) sense. Henceforth, in the era of information technology, the meaning of facing must be adjusted to the current situation, which can be done electronically.

Bahwa salah satu ciri Hak Tanggungan, yaitu kepada Kreditor sebagai pemegang Hak Tanggungan diberikan kedudukan yang diutamakan kepada pemegang jaminan (droit de preference), yaitu Kreditornya. Ciri seperti ini tercantum dalam kalimat terakhir Pasal 1 angka 1 UUHT, yaitu ”...yang memberikan kedudukan yang diutamakan kepada kreditor tertentu terhadap kreditor-kreditor lain”. Kemudian ciri tersebut disebutkan pula dalam Pasal 20 ayat (1) huruf b UUHT pada kalimat terakhir ditegaskan bahwa ” ...pemegang Hak Tanggungan dengan hak mendahului daripada kreditor-kreditor lainnya”. Kedudukan yang diutamakan bagi Kreditor menjadi menjadi tergerus ketika harta yang dijaminan utang Debitor ke Kreditor ternyata Debitor tersangkut korupsi. Harta benda milik Debitor tersebut disita atas perintah pengadilan, padahal harta benda tersebut sedang dijaminkan kepada Kreditor. Jika terjadi seperti Droit de Preference dari Kreditor menjadi tidak diutamakan lagi karena yang harus didahulukan pemenuhanyan atau pengembalianyan kepada negara, yang pada akhirnya Kreditor hanya akan menerima sisanya jika ada, tapi jika tidak ada maka Kreditor akan sangat dirugikan. Dalam Pasal 19 ayat (2) dan (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 31 tahun 1999 tentang Pemberantasan Tindak Pidana Korupsi Upaya hukum yang bisa dilakukan oleh Kreditor hanyalah mengajukan/mengirimkan Surat Keberatan kepada pengadilan yang menjatuhkan sita, meskipun demikian tidak menangguhkan pelaksanaan putusan pengadilan. Dengan pengaturan seperti itu Kreditor yang beritikad baik pun dirugikan dan droit de preference (asas prioritas) bagi kreditor sudah tidak memberikan perlindungan hukum dan kepastian hukum.Kata kunci: Debitor; Droit de Preference; KreditorAbstract: Whereas one of the characteristics of the Underwriting Right, namely to the Creditor as the Holder of the Underwriting Right, is given a priority position to the guarantee holder (Droit de preference), namely the Creditor. Such characteristics are listed in the last sentence of Article 1 number 1 of the UUHT, namely "... which gives a certain creditor's priority to other creditors". Then this feature is also mentioned in Article 20 paragraph (1) letter b of the UUHT in the last sentence. It is stated that "... the Holder of Mortgage with the right to precede other creditors". The preferred position for Creditors becomes eroded when the assets guaranteed by the Debtor's debt to the Creditors are found to be involved in corruption. Debtor property is confiscated by court order, even though the property is being pledged to the creditor. If something happens like Droit de Preference from a creditor becomes no longer a priority because it must be prioritized to fulfillment or return to the state, which in the end, the creditor will only receive the rest if there is, but if there are no creditors will be greatly disadvantaged. In Article 19 paragraph (2) and (3) of Law Number 31 of 1999 concerning Eradication of Corruption, a legal remedy which can be carried out by Creditors is only to submit / send an Objection Letter to the court that imposed the seizure, however it does not suspend the implementation of the court's decision. With such an arrangement, creditors with good intentions are disadvantaged, and Droit de preference (priority principle) for creditors has not provided legal protection and legal certainty.Keywords: Debtor; Droit de Preference; Creditor