Legal Power of Pipil as the Real Evidence of Ownership of Rights to Land in Dispute (Analysis on the Decision of Selong District Court

Imanul Ichwar Daulay, Rodliyah Rodliyah, Widodo Widodo

Abstract


In this paper, the authors discuss cases that relate to the basis of ownership of rights and authority of land rights called Pipil among the people of Lombok Island. Landowners use Pipil as the real evidence of land rights because it is only landowners who are obliged to pay taxes. After the enactment of Law No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA), there are fundamental changes in the field of land law and individual rights to land that apply in Indonesia. It mandates that certificate is the only real evidence of ownership of rights to land. However, even though UUPA is in force, there are still many Indonesians, especially in Lombok, who consider Pipil as real evidence of ownership of rights to land. In civil court practice for land cases in the Selong District Court, there are some times that court decisions win the Pipil holder. On the other hand, there are also some times when the Pipil holder is the party who loses the case. It can be found in two land cases decided by the Selong District Court. In the decision of the Selong District Court No. 73/Pdt.G/2008/PN.SEL. on June 18, 2009, the plaintiff who filed Pipil as real evidence was the party who won the case because the real evidence of Pipil was supported by two witnesses who saw that the plaintiff’s controlled and worked on the dispute land. Meanwhile, the decision of the Selong District Court No. 113/Pdt.G/2015/PN.SEL. on June 2, 2016 jo. the decision of Mataram High Court No. 102/PDT/2016/PT.MTR. on October 4, 2016 jo. the decision of Supreme Court No. 399 K/Pdt/2017 on 23 May 2017, the plaintiff who filed Pipil as the real evidence was the party who lost the case. In this case, consideration of the court’s decision prioritized the use of the dispute land in the public interest even though the plaintiff submitted three witnesses who witnessed that the plaintiff’s parents/ grandfather controlled and worked on the dispute land.


Keywords


Pipil; Certificate; Law

Full Text:

PDF

References


Mertokusumo, S. (2010). Hukum acara perdata Indonesia. Universitas Atma Jaya Yogyakarta.

Samudera, T. (2004). Hukum Pembuktian Dalam Acara Perdata, Alumni, Bandung.

Marzuki, P. M., (2011). Penelitian Hukum, Kencana Prenada Media Group, Jakarta, 2011, hlm.141.

Soemitro, R. H. (1990). Metodologi penelitian hukum dan jurimetri. Ghalia Indonesia, Jakarta, 167.

Harsono, B. (2008). Hukum Agraria Indonesia, Sejarah Pembentukan Undang-undang Pokok Agraria, Isi dan Pelaksanaannya, Jilid 1: Hukum Tanah Nasional. Djambatan, Jakarta.

Ismail, N. (2012). Arah politik hukum pertanahan dan perlindungan kepemilikan tanah masyarakat. Jurnal Rechts Vinding: Media Pembinaan Hukum Nasional, 1(1), 33-51.

Diantha, I. M. P. (2016). Metodologi penelitian hukum normatif dalam justifikasi teori hukum. Prenada Media.

Marzuki, M. (2017). Penelitian Hukum: Edisi Revisi. Prenada Media.

Ibrahim, J. (2006). Teori dan metodologi penelitian hukum normatif. Malang: Bayumedia Publishing, 57.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v6i3.936

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019 International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding (IJMMU) ISSN 2364-5369
https://ijmmu.com
[email protected]
dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu
facebook.com/ijmmu
Copyright © 2014-2018 IJMMU. All rights reserved.