Juridical Review of Land Dispute Decisions in the Administrative Court

of Yogyakarta

Erna Sri Wibawanti

, Takariadinda Diana Etika

and Ahmad Prakarsa Surya Sanjaya

Janabadra University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Keywords:

Land Dispute, Administrative Court.

Abstract:

The results showed that land disputes handled by the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court, 11 from 12

lawsuits, when it is viewed from the subjects (Plaintiffs and Defendants), the one who sued were individuals

and only one is a Private Legal Entity, while the defendant is the Head of the Land Ofﬁce and Village Chief.

Most of the objects of the dispute are the Land Certiﬁcates , the Decree of Giving Rights and the silence of

the ofﬁcials (negative ﬁctitious). This negative ﬁctitious dispute object no longer exists after the Act No. 30

of 2014, because the provisions regarding negative ﬁction have been changed to positive ﬁctitious provisions.

However, because ﬁctitious positive State Administrative decisions are relatively less published than negative

ﬁctions, even positive ﬁctional claims to the State Administrative Court are less frequent. Until this research

was conducted, there was no land suit that consisted of Positive Fictitious decisions that entered the Yogyakarta

Administrative Court. The basis of the land dispute lawsuit at the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court is

generally because the Plaintiff feels aggrieved because of the object of material disability, formal disability,

and a violation of the Principles of Good Governance. The form of judges’ decisions in land disputes at State

Administrative Court is Court is mostly ”NO” (Niet OnvarkelijkVerklaard, which is 6 cases in 12 cases. This

happened because the lawsuit registered was often made in such a way by the Advocates, as if it should be

examined up to the point of the case. After examining the subject matter, through veriﬁcation and examination

of witnesses, it was discovered that the exception was the object of the dispute.

1 INTRODUCTION

According to the Ombudsman member for Agrarian

and Agriculture, Alamsyah Saragih, (kompas.com,

2018) community reports related to land are included

in the category of the ﬁve highest public reports.

Complaints related to land reached 14 (fourteen) per-

cent of all public reports received by the Ombudsman.

Of the total reports related to the land, 23 percent are

land conﬂicts or disputes.

It is undeniable that land disputes, judging from

the juridical aspect alone, are not simple solutions.

In a case, it often involves several agencies, which

are directly or indirectly related to the problem or dis-

pute. Need the same concept and perception to pro-

duce a solid and fair solution for those who demand

justice. Without intending to generalize, it appears

that an understanding of the concepts and perceptions

underlying the resolution of land disputes in Indone-

sia is still very deﬁcient, which is disadvantageous

to justice seekers. (Istijab, 2018) In fact, according

to S.F.Marbun in (Syaha, 2016), philosophically the

purpose of establishing a State Administrative Court

(PTUN) is to provide protection for individual rights

and community rights, so that accord, balance and

harmony is achieved between individual interests and

the interests of the community or the public interest.

According to Aju Putrijanti (Putrijanti and

Leonard, 2019), the role of the State Administrative

Court is increasingly important to enforce the jus-

tice function which is carried out together with the

supervisory function. Supervision of the running of

the government needs to be done and improved, so

that it can realize good governance. The supervision

function by State Administrative Court is important to

guarantee the protection and fulﬁllment of the rights

as citizens, and the enforcement of state administra-

tive law within the legal state framework. Administra-

tive law enforcement in several ﬁelds does not seem

to work according to the existing conditions.

Like disputes in other ﬁelds, there are two ways of

resolving land disputes that are common in Indone-

sia, namely through nonlitigation channels and litiga-

tion channels. How the competence of the Court, es-

Wibawanti, E., Etika, T. and Sanjaya, A.

Juridical Review of Land Dispute Decisions in the Administrative Court of Yogyakarta.

DOI: 10.5220/0009879001010108

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Applied Science, Engineering and Social Sciences (ICASESS 2019), pages 101-108

ISBN: 978-989-758-452-7

101

pecially the State Administrative Court, in handling

land disputes is still unclear to the public, so that

land claims that are registered with the State Admin-

istrative Court are forced to be unacceptable because

of the plaintiff’s ignorance of the competence of the

State Administrative Court in handling land cases,

so also happened in the Yogyakarta Administrative

Court.

Based on this background, the problem in this re-

search is a land dispute handled by the Yogyakarta

State Administrative Court, the basis of the claim of

the plaintiffs in a land dispute at the Yogyakarta State

Administrative Court, as well as a judge’s decision in

resolving land disputes at the Yogyakarta State Ad-

ministrative Court.

2 METHOD

The research was conducted by having normative le-

gal research with a legal case study approach in the

form of a State Administrative Court Decision regard-

ing land disputes. The research data was obtained by

reviewing the decisions of the State Administrative

Court, also supported by data from interviews with

Yogyakarta State Administrative Court Judges and

various laws and regulations and other legal material

relating to land disputes and the State administrative

judicature. The data obtained were analyzed using a

qualitative descriptive method to obtain a clear pic-

ture relating to land disputes in the Yogyakarta State

Administrative Court.

3 DISCUSSION

3.1 Land Disputes Handled by the

Yogyakarta State Administrative

Court

Based on the results of the study, it was obtained data

from the research object in the form of an incraacht

decision that has permanent legal force and has en-

tered the legal archives, for the period 1 January 2014

to 31 December 2018 there were a number of 12 land

dispute decisions. In 2014 there were 4 (four) dis-

putes, in 2015 there were 3 (three) disputes, in 2017

there were 4 (four) disputes, whereas in 2018 there

were 1 (one) dispute that had been decided by the Yo-

gyakarta State Administrative Court. The location of

the 12 (twelve) disputes included: Yogyakarta City

5 (ﬁve) disputes, 4 (four) disputes occurred in Sle-

man Regency, 2 (two) disputes occurred in Bantul Re-

gency, 1 (one) dispute occurred in Gunungkidul Re-

gency.

Land disputes handled by the Yogyakarta State

Administrative Court are divided into 2 (two), namely

from the side of the Subject of the Dispute and the

Object of the dispute.

Referring from the subject of land disputes in

Yogyakarta Administrative Court which became the

plaintiffs, most (11 of 12 lawsuits) are individual or

person, only 1 (one) plaintiff is a legal entity, namely

PT. Papua Regional Development Bank. Even though

the plaintiff is an individual, there are a number of

lawsuits with more than one plaintiff. While most

of the defendants were the Head of the Land Ofﬁce,

namely the Yogyakarta City Land Ofﬁce 5 claims, the

Sleman District Land Ofﬁce, 3 (three) claims of the

Head Ofﬁce of Bantul Regency 2 (two) claims, the

Head of the Land Ofﬁce of Gunungkidul Regency, 2

(two) two) claim and Head of Caturtunggal Village

Besides the main defendant, in several cases there was

also defendant II, as Defendants of the Reconvention.

Based on the object, land disputes that enter the

Yogyakarta State Administrative Court include:

a. Certiﬁcate of Land Rights, either in the form of

a Right of Ownership Certiﬁcate, Right to Build

(HGB), Right to Use and Management Right. The

land certiﬁcate which is part of the State Admin-

istration Decree on the other hand is also an ac-

knowledgment of the rights of the state to citi-

zens regarding ownership of land, sothere is also

a civil law dimension. It can clearly be said that

the certiﬁcate in this case stand in two legal en-

vironments namely the State Administrative Law

and Civil Law. Therefore, if there is a dispute over

the land certiﬁcate, the authority to adjudicate can

be carried out by the Administrative Court and the

General Court, depending on the absolute author-

ity of each court in accordance with the applicable

laws and regulations.

b. Other decisions relating to the granting of land

rights issued by State Administration Ofﬁcers in

the ranks of the National Land Agency (BPN),

namely:

1) Letter of the Head of the Sleman Regency

Land Ofﬁce concerning Termination of Let-

ter C Land Conversion because there is al-

ready a Certiﬁcate of Using Rights ( dispute

No.18/G/2017/PTUN.YK)

2) Letter of the Head of the Republic of Indone-

sia National Land Agency concerning House

/ Land Sales and Conferral of Management

Rights.(dispute No.01/G/2018/PTUN.YK)

3) Decree of the Head of the Land Ofﬁce

ICASESS 2019 - International Conference on Applied Science, Engineering and Social Science

102

District. Sleman regarding Application for

Issuance of Mortgage Certiﬁcates (dispute

No.24/G/2017/PTUN.YK

c. The Silence act from State Administrative Court

Ofﬁcials outside the National Land Agency ranks,

namely:

1) The silent act of the Head of the Caturtung-

gal Village to the request for a sign of support-

ing evidence for the Land Conversion Letter C.

The plaintiff in this case wanted to carry out

his Letter C Land Conversion, and then sub-

mitted a request to the Defendant to sign the

supporting evidence. However, the Defendant

responded by ignoring the request for several

months. The Plaintiff felt disadvantaged be-

cause of being obstructed in his Letter C Land

Conversion process. (Dispute Number 01 / G /

2014 / PTUN.YK)

2) The silent act towards the request to cancel the

write-off of the Plaintiff’s name Revocation of

the Plaintiff’s name and replaced with the name

of another person in the Plaintiff’s Title Certiﬁ-

cate is deemed a procedural defect. The Plain-

tiff submitted a request to the Defendant to can-

cel the write-off, but the Defendant responded

with a silence for months. (Dispute Number 09

/ G / 2014 / PTUN.YK)

The two disputes are similar because they both

have a negative ﬁctitious object of dispute (regulated

in Article 3 UUNo. 5 of 1986 concerning Peratun),

and occurred before the enactment of Law No. 30 of

2014 concerning Government Administration. This

negative ﬁctitious dispute object no longer exists af-

ter the Act No. 30 of 2014, because the provisions

regarding negative ﬁction have been changed to pos-

itive ﬁctitious provisions. However, because ﬁcti-

tious positive State Administrative decisions are rela-

tively less published than negative ﬁctions, even posi-

tive ﬁctional claims to the State Administrative Court

are less frequent. This is a beneﬁt of the enactment

of Law No. 30 of 2014 because before that, the

lawsuit against the decision of a negative ﬁctional

State Administrative Court dominated the disputes in

the State Administrative Court, not least in the Yo-

gyakarta State Administrative Court.

After the enactment of Law Number 30 Year 2014

Regarding Government Administration, the authority

of the Administrative Court no longer hears a Nega-

tive Fictitious decision, but a Positive Fictitious Deci-

sion. The authority of Administrative Court was ex-

panded, not only to adjudicate th State Administration

dispute which object was in written State Administra-

tion decision. The authority of PTUN includes:

a. Assess the positive ﬁctive TUN decision. If there

is a request from the community members to the

TUN ofﬁcial to issue a TUN decision, but that

has not been implemented until a certain period of

time has passed, then the TUN decision is deemed

to have granted the request.

b. Assess the actual actions or actions taken by gov-

ernment ofﬁcials;

c. Assess the TUN decision or actions of govern-

ment ofﬁcials in the executive, judicial, legislative

and other state administration circles;

d. Assess the abuse of authority by government ofﬁ-

cials;

e. Assess general government ofﬁcials’ decisions.

(Putrijanti, 2015)

Article 47 of Law No. 5 of 1986 concerning State

Administrative Court states that the court has the duty

and authority to examine, decide upon and resolve

state administrative disputes. The discussion regard-

ing the authority possessed is closely related to the

object of the dispute that must be examined, decided

upon and resolved. The object of the dispute exam-

ined is the written stipulation issued by the State Ad-

ministration Agency or Ofﬁcer which contains state

administrative legal actions that are concrete, individ-

ual, ﬁnal and have legal consequences for a person

or a legal entity. In Article 21 paragraph (1) of Law

Number 30 Year 2014 Regarding Government Ad-

ministration, it states that the court has the author-

ity to accept, examine and decide whether there is

an element of abuse of authority by government of-

ﬁcials. The formulation of the contents of the two

articles is different, which may arise with the thought

that: one, the authority of concerning State Adminis-

trative Court becomes broader, not merely examining,

deciding and resolving state administrative disputes,

but also assessing whether or not there is an element

of abuse of authority by Government Ofﬁcials. Sec-

ond, that the Court’s decision regarding whether or

not there is abuse of authority can be appealed to the

State Administrative High Court whose decision is ﬁ-

nal and binding. Both of these things are an exten-

sion of the authority of concerning State Administra-

tive Court, that is, not only the number of the admin-

istrative authorities, but also the settlement of state

administrative disputes only. (SANTOSO and SAD-

JIJONO, 2018).

Related to the positive ﬁctitious decision/verdict

(acceptance) as the object of government disputes in

the competence of the State Administrative Court to

test the government’s silence when carrying out duties

and functions based on authority norms can be justi-

ﬁed according to the law or contrary to the laws and

Juridical Review of Land Dispute Decisions in the Administrative Court of Yogyakarta

103

regulations, general basis of good governance and the

principle of good governance. (Setiawan and Hadiat-

modjo, )

Until this research was conducted, there was no

land suit that consisted of Positive Fictitious decisions

that entered the Yogyakarta Administrative Court.

3.2 Basic Lawsuits to the State

Administrative Court

Regarding the reasons that are commonly used as the

basis for ﬁling a State Administration lawsuit is reg-

ulated in Article 53 paragraph (2) of the Law on Ad-

ministrative Law of the State, namely:

a. The State Administration decision sued is con-

trary to the applicable laws and regulations, if:

1) Contrary to the provisions in the laws and regu-

lations which are procedural / formal in nature,

2) Contrary to the provisions in the laws and reg-

ulations that are substantial / material,

3) Issued by unauthorized State Administration

ofﬁcial.

b. The State Administration Decree sued contra-

venes the general principles of good governance.

The legal procedure aspect is one of the important

requirements that must be fulﬁlled by a decision or

decree issued by a state administration agency or of-

ﬁcial. In Article 53 paragraph (2) a, Law no. 5 of

1986 concerning the Judicial System of State Admin-

istration as amended by Law No. 9 of 2004, one of

the reasons that can be used in a lawsuit is that the

state administration’s decision is contrary to the ap-

plicable laws and regulations. In the explanation of

the article, it is determined that a state administrative

decision can be considered contrary to the applica-

ble laws and regulations if the person concerned (the

decision) contradicts the provisions in the ”procedu-

ral” laws and regulations. Therefore, the legal pro-

cedure aspect is one of the basis for a state admin-

istrative court decision to cancel a certiﬁcate of land

rights because the state administrative body or ofﬁcial

has made a legal act issuing a decision or stipulation

due to an error in the nature of ”legal procedure” in

its issuance, it means that the decision of the state ad-

ministration body or ofﬁcial is in conﬂict with appli-

cable laws. With the discovery of a procedural error,

the court’s rationale in its decision to declare ”null”

(nietig) the decision.(Wahyunadi, 2016)

Besides the procedural aspects, a decision must

also fulﬁll the material aspects. Although the de-

mands are in principle always the same, the basis of

the lawsuit certainly varies depending on what and

how the case is and the object of the dispute. There-

fore, they must look into the documents of the Law-

suit one by one, the contents of which are also writ-

ten in the copy of the decision. However, there are

similarities in all the grounds of the lawsuit, namely

‘because the Plaintiff feels that his interests were im-

paired by the State Administration Decree issued by

the Defendant’

If it is viewed from the grounds of a land suit

ﬁled with State Administrative Court of Yogyakarta,

it is mostly related to the issuance of certiﬁcates

and requests for revocation of certiﬁcates, on various

grounds: the defendant exceeds authority, the data

in the certiﬁcate issued is legally ﬂawed due to er-

ror in persona, because the head of the land ofﬁce

is inaccurate in listing rights subjects, the defendant

violated the General Principles of Good Governance

(AAUPB) especially the principle of expediency, le-

gal certainty and the principle of accuracy. Besides

that, the lawsuit that entered PTUN was also based

on the silence of the defendant. Silence as the basis

of a lawsuit can be seen in Dispute Number 01 / G /

2014 / PTUN.YK and Dispute Number 09 / G / 2014

/ PTUN.YK

Dispute Number 01 / G / 2014 / PTUN.YK. The

silent act of the Head of the Caturtunggal Village to

the request for a sign of supporting evidence for the

Land Conversion Letter C. The plaintiff in this case

wanted to carry out his Letter C Land Conversion,

and then submitted a request to the Defendant to sign

the supporting evidence. However, the Defendant re-

sponded by ignoring the request for several months.

The Plaintiff felt disadvantaged because of being ob-

structed in his Letter C Land Conversion process.

Dispute Number 09 / G / 2014 / PTUN.YK. The

silent act towards the request to cancel the write-off

of the Plaintiff’s name Revocation of the Plaintiff’s

name and replaced with the name of another person

in the Plaintiff’s Title Certiﬁcate is deemed a pro-

cedural defect. The Plaintiff submitted a request to

the Defendant to cancel the write-off, but the Defen-

dant responded with a silence for months. The two

disputes are similar because they both have a nega-

tive ﬁctitious object of dispute (regulated in Article 3

UUNo. 5 of 1986 concerning Peratun), and occurred

before the enactment of Law No. 30 of 2014 concern-

ing Government Administration. This negative ﬁcti-

tious dispute object no longer exists after the Act No.

30 of 2014, because the provisions regarding nega-

tive ﬁction have been changed to positive ﬁctitious

provisions. However, because ﬁctitious positive State

Administrative decisions are relatively less published

than negative ﬁctions, even positive ﬁctional claims

to the State Administrative Court are less frequent.

ICASESS 2019 - International Conference on Applied Science, Engineering and Social Science

104

This is a beneﬁt of the enactment of Law No. 30

of 2014 because before that, the lawsuit against the

decision of a negative ﬁctional State Administrative

Court dominated the disputes in the State Adminis-

trative Court, not least in the Yogyakarta State Ad-

ministrative Court.

The concept of positive ﬁctitious decisions in Law

No. 30 of 2014 is very different from the negative ﬁc-

titious decisions stipulated in the Peratun Law. Con-

trary to the concept of negative ﬁction, it means that

the silence of the ofﬁcial’s attitude is considered to

be refusing, while the positive ﬁctional is considered

granted. Even in positive ﬁctitious decisions, the ap-

plicant does not automatically obtain the results of his

application, but must ﬁrst submit a request to the Ad-

ministrative Court to obtain a decision on receipt of

the request. PTUN must decide on the application no

later than 21 (twenty one) working days after the ap-

plication is submitted. State Administration Decree is

ﬁnal and binding, there are no other legal remedies.

Government Agencies and / or Ofﬁcers must deter-

mine the Decree to implement the PTUN decision no

later than 5 (ﬁve) working days after the decision of

the Court is determined. (Abdullah, 2010)

In general, the legal basis used by the plaintiff to

sue the State Administrative Court is the ﬁrst reason

that a TUN ofﬁcial or TUN body has committed an

act that violates the applicable laws and regulations

and the second has violated Good Governance Gen-

eral Principles ( AUPB) both AUPB in Law No. 28

of 1999 (before the enactment of Law No.30 of 2014)

and Good Governance General Principles contained

in Law No. 30 of 2014.

Good Governance General Principles as a doctrine

is universal that has been recognized and applied in

many countries, where there are formulated (codiﬁed)

formally and some are not codiﬁed. In essence, the

functions of the Good Governance General Principles

are: 1) As a guideline or code of ethics for State Ad-

ministration Agencies / ofﬁcials in carrying out gov-

ernment affairs (including in order to issue State Ad-

ministration Decree), the ultimate goal is for the real-

ization of good and clean governance (clean and good

governance) ; 2) As a benchmark as well as a rea-

son (beroepsgronden) for parties who feel their inter-

ests have been impaired by a decision issued by the

State Administration Agency / Ofﬁcer to ﬁle a claim

against the decision; 3) As a basis or criteria for test-

ing (toetsingsgronden) for the court or State Adminis-

tration judge to assess whether the decision issued by

the State Administration Agency / Ofﬁcial has been

in accordance with legal norms and justice, so that a

decision can be made regarding the validity of the de-

cision. (Wahyunadi, 2016)

The concept of positive ﬁctitious decisions in Law

No. 30 of 2014 is very different from the negative

ﬁctitious decisions stipulated in the State Administra-

tive Law. Contrary to the negative ﬁction concept, it

means that the silence of the ofﬁcial’s attitude is con-

sidered to be refusing, while the positive ﬁctional is

considered to be granted. Even in positive ﬁctitious

decisions, the applicant does not automatically obtain

the results of his application, but must ﬁrst submit a

request to the Administrative Court to obtain a deci-

sion on receipt of the request. State Administrative

Court must decide on the application no later than

21 (twenty one) working days after the application

is submitted. State Administrative Court decision is

ﬁnal and binding, there are no other legal remedies.

Government Agencies and / or Ofﬁcers must deter-

mine the Decree to implement the State Administra-

tive Court decision no later than 5 (ﬁve) working days

since the decision of the Court is determined. (Lim-

bong, 2012)

3.3 Form of Decision

he decision made by the Judge on land disputes that

entered throughout 2014 to 20 18 consisted of:

a 4 (four) cases with a ’Grant’ decision

b 1 (one) case with a ’Granting Partly’ verdict

c 1 (one) case with the decision ‘Refusing’

d 6 (six) cases with the decision of ’NO (Niet On-

varkelijkVerklaard)’ or ’cannot be accepted

The decisions on land disputes are explained in

detail as follows

1 4 (four) cases with a ’Grant’ decision There are

4 (four) State Administrative Court decisions that

grant all plaintiff’s requests. Formally the plain-

tiff’s request against State Administrative Court

can be grouped into 2 (two), the ﬁrst is the main

lawsuit, namely requesting State Administrative

Court to cancel / revoke the disputed state admin-

istration decision letter and the second, an addi-

tional lawsuit consisting of requesting a new ad-

ministrative decision, request for compensation

and the last request for rehabilitation.

a dispute based on the fact that the issuance

of the dispute object was ﬂawed in proce-

dure, the Judge declared the object of the

dispute null or invalid and ordered the revo-

cation of the object of dispute. ( Dispute

No.05/G/2015/PTUN.YK,

b on the fact that the issuance of the dispute

object was ﬂawed in procedure and violated

AAUPB, especially the principle of accuracy

Juridical Review of Land Dispute Decisions in the Administrative Court of Yogyakarta

105

and the principle of legal certainty. (Dispute

No.26/G/2015/PTUN.YK),

c based on the consideration of a District Court

decision that had to be carried out, because the

object of the dispute was considered juridical

defect in material and formal aspects so that it

was deemed invalid or invalid and had to be re-

voked(Dispute No. 18/G/2017/PTUN.YK)

d based on the reasons for discovering various

procedural defects and violations of the Gen-

eral Principles of Good Governance in the is-

suance of the object of the dispute, (Dispute

No.01/G/2018/PTUN.YK)

2 1 (one) case with a ’Granting Partly’ verdict be-

cause the object of the lawsuit was proven legally

and convincingly to contain material defects that

is contrary to the laws and regulations of Arti-

cle 19 paragraph (1) of the Basic Agrarian Law.

Therefore, the object of the dispute is declared

void or invalid and must be revoked by the De-

fendant, and the Defendant is ordered to follow

up on the Plaintiff’s request. Meanwhile the de-

mands besides and the rest were rejected by the

Panel of Judges.

3 1 (one) case with the decision ‘Refusing’ with

consideration of ﬁnding evidence that the Certiﬁ-

cate of Property Rights that would be encumbered

by the Underwriting Right had the status of inher-

itance which had not been divided and was still

blocked.. Therefore, the Defendant / Head of the

Sleman Regency Land Ofﬁce refuses to issue the

Mortgage Certiﬁcate submitted by the Plaintiff.

4 6 (six) cases with the decision of ’NO (Niet Onva-

rkelijkVerklaard)’ or ’cannot be accepted’ Judges’

considerations for deciding ”NO” or ”Unaccept-

able” lawsuit from the defendant can be detailed

as follows

a Dispute Number 02 / G / 2014 / PTUN.YK This

dispute was decided ‘NO’ or ‘unacceptable’ by

the Panel of Judges for several reasons. The

ﬁrst reason is because of absolute competence,

that aside from State Administrative Court of

Yogyakarta, it turns out that this dispute was

also registered in the Yogyakarta District Court.

The second reason is that this lawsuit has no

legal basis or legal standing. The third reason

is because the lawsuit is subject to declarative

(declanatoir) exceptions (because of absolute or

relative competence of the court) and premor-

tal (premetoir) exceptions because they have

passed the deadline or have expired. The fourth

reason is because the plurium litis consortium,

that the Plaintiff acknowledges that there are

other heirs who are entitled, so this lawsuit is

lacking of parties.

b Dispute Number 09 / G / 2014 / PTUN.YK This

dispute was decided ‘NO’ or ‘unacceptable’ on

the grounds that the Plaintiff did not have a di-

rect relationship with the object of the dispute.

The arguments and evidence are considered ir-

relevant with the case and object of the dispute.

Based on that, the lawsuit is considered to have

no legal standing.

c Dispute Number 10 / G / 2014 / PTUN.YK This

dispute was decided ‘NO’ or ‘unacceptable’ on

the grounds that the State Administrative Court

was not authorized to examine, decide on and

resolve the dispute in lititis. This means that the

dispute is not the absolute authority of the Yo-

gyakarta Administrative Court but the absolute

authority of the Religious Court because the

subject of the dispute is actually an inheritance

case. The Panel of Judges is of the opinion that

the subject matter of the dispute in casu does

not need to be further considered and legally,

the Plaintiff’s claim has legal grounds to be de-

clared not accepted.)

d Dispute Number 22 / G / 2015 / PTUN.YK The

Panel of Judges decided that this dispute was

not accepted or ’NO’ for various reasons. The

ﬁrst reason is because the lawsuit has expired.

The second reason is because the claim does

not have a legal standing because the plaintiff’s

claim does not explain the origin of the object

of thedispute, so there is actually no legal re-

lationship between the Plaintiff and the object

of the dispute. The third reason is because ob-

scuur libel lawsuit because there is no correla-

tion between the title of the claim, the basis of

the claim (posita), and the claim (petitum).

e Dispute Number 16 / G / 2017 / PTUN.YK This

dispute was decided by the Yogyakarta State

Administrative Court Judge with the ‘NO’ ar-

gument based on the reason that the lawsuit has

expired. This fact is known at the time of ex-

amination of the subject matter of the dispute,

namely at the examination of evidence and wit-

nesses, where the evidence and witnesses show

conclusively that the Plaintiff has known about

the object of the dispute in advance and has

passed the time limit of the claim.

f Dispute Number 26 / G / 2017 / PTUN.YK

The Panel of Judges decided ‘NO’ on this dis-

pute because it considered that this dispute was

not a State Administration dispute but a dispute

of ownership (civil) therefore State Administra-

tive Court was not in an authority to try it.

ICASESS 2019 - International Conference on Applied Science, Engineering and Social Science

106

From these data it is known that the Yogyakarta

State Administrative Court Judges very often decide

cases that contain land disputes with a decision ‘NO’

or niet ontvankelijke verklaard. The ’NO’ verdict is a

ruling stating that the claim cannot be accepted on the

grounds that the claim contains formal defects. The

causes of formal defects in the lawsuit are, among

other things, because the lawsuit does not meet the

requirements given in Article 123 paragraph (1) HIR

j.o. SEMA No. 4 of 1996, in the form of:

1 A claim has no legal basis or legal standing;

2 An error in persona suit in the form of disqualiﬁ-

cation or plurium litis consortium;

3 Claims containing defects or obscuur libel; or

4 The suit violates absolute or relative competence.

The ’NO’ decision at the Yogyakarta State Ad-

ministrative Court often occurs because the Judge is

not sure yet, or there is no convincing evidence, to

fulﬁll dismissal as stipulated in Article 62. The reg-

istered claim is often made in such a way by the Ad-

vocate, as if it should be examined to the point of the

matter. After examining the subject matter, through

veriﬁcation and examination of witnesses, it was dis-

covered that the exception was the object of the dis-

pute. For this kind of outcome, the Judge will in-

evitably have to give a ’NO’ or ’unacceptable’ verdict

after the main examination.

The mandate of SEMA Number 4 of 2014 does

require the Judge to be careful and not careless in giv-

ing a decision ”NO” in dismissal. This is related to

the 90 day lawsuit that is feared to be missed so that

the lawsuit is not subject to questioning only because

the lawsuit has to be ﬁled repeatedly as a result of not

passing the dismissal.

The basis for granting the “NO” verdict can be

seen in the Indonesian Supreme Court Jurisprudence

No. 1149 / K / Sip / 1975 dated 17 April 1975 j.o.

Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of In-

donesia No. 565 / K / Sip / 1973 dated August 21,

1973 j.o. Decision of the Supreme Court of the Re-

public of Indonesia No 1149 / K / Sip / 1979 dated

April 7, 1979 which states that against the object of

the claim that is not clear, the claim cannot be ac-

cepted. In the State Administrative Judiciary, regard-

ing the “NO” verdict is regulated in Article 77 of the

TUN Judicial Law (51/2009) that basically a decision

cannot be accepted because of an exception. The ex-

ception is three categories, namely:

1 The exception of the absolute authority of the

Court, can be ﬁled at any time during the exam-

ination, and although there is no exception to the

Court’s absolute authority (from the Defendant),

if the Judge is aware of it, he is obliged to declare

that the Court is not authorized to adjudicate the

dispute;

2 Exception of the relative authority of the Court,

submitted before being given an answer to the

subjectmatter of the dispute, and the exception

must be decided before the dispute is examined;

3 Other exceptions that do not concern the Court’s

authority can only be decided along with the sub-

ject matter of the dispute.

The fact that occurs in society, there is still confu-

sion or misunderstanding of the community in deter-

mining a land case in the realm of the General Court

or State Administrative Court.

At present, there are three justice systems that

can handle a land case, namely Civil Court, Criminal

Court and State Administrative Court. Land cases can

be an accumulation of civil, state administration, or

criminal cases at the same time. (Simanjuntak, 2017)

In general, land disputes can be resolved either

through civil or religious justice (if it involves own-

ership of land rights), criminal justice (if the criminal

element is contained in the dispute), or administra-

tive justice (if it involves the validity of land rights).

The liquidation of the jurisdictional authority bound-

aries in resolving land issues makes the land prob-

lem a gray legal area. This ambiguity can be seen

from the problematic relationship between adminis-

trative law and civil law in solving land issues. In

such conditions, it is often not easy to determine the

meaning of ”certiﬁcate validity” or ”certiﬁcate own-

ership” for both the General Court and the State Ad-

ministrative Court. Both in the context of the Gen-

eral Courts and the Religious Courts, in civil disputes

involving land related to land titles, the Court often

states that the ”legality” and land title certiﬁcates are

ﬁrst tested by State Administrative Court. Likewise

on the contrary, the plural found by the State Admin-

istrative Court stated that the General Court must ﬁrst

decide the matter of ownership, even if the sued is the

validity of a certiﬁcate.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of research and discussion on

Land Dispute Settlement through the State Adminis-

trative Court in Yogyakarta, conclusions can be drawn

as follows:

1 Land disputes handled by the Yogyakarta State

Administrative Court can be determined by two

variables, namely: (a) based on the subject (Plain-

tiff and Defendant), and (b) based on the object of

Juridical Review of Land Dispute Decisions in the Administrative Court of Yogyakarta

107

the dispute:The results showed that land disputes

handled by the Yogyakarta State Administrative

Court, 11 from 12 lawsuits, when it is viewed

from the subjects (Plaintiffs and Defendants), the

one who sued were individuals and only one is

a Private Legal Entity, while the defendant is the

Head of the Land Ofﬁce and Village Chief. Most

of the objects of the dispute are the Land Certiﬁ-

cates , the Decree of Giving Rights and the silence

of the ofﬁcials (negative ﬁctitious). This nega-

tive ﬁctitious dispute object no longer exists after

the Act No. 30 of 2014, because the provisions

regarding negative ﬁction have been changed to

positive ﬁctitious provisions. However, because

ﬁctitious positive State Administrative decisions

are relatively less published than negative ﬁctions,

even positive ﬁctional claims to the State Admin-

istrative Court are less frequent. Until this re-

search was conducted, there was no land suit that

consisted of Positive Fictitious decisions that en-

tered the Yogyakarta Administrative Court.

2 The fundamentals of the lawsuit in each land dis-

pute in the Yogyakarta State Administrative Court

can generally be grouped into 3 (three) groups,

namely the Plaintiff feels his rights and interests

are harmed because:

a The object of dispute (State Administrative De-

cree) issued contains material defects;

b The object of dispute (State Administrative De-

cree) issued contains formal defects; and

c The object of dispute (State Administrative De-

cree) issued ignores Good Governance Princi-

ples.

3 The decision made by the Judge on land disputes

that entered throughout 2014 to 2018 consisted of:

4 (four) cases with a ’Grant’ decision1 (one) case

with a ’Granting Partly’ verdict

1 (one) case with the decision ‘Refusing’

6 (six) cases with the decision of ’NO (Niet

OnvarkelijkVerklaard)’ or ’cannot be accepted

The form of the decision of the Yogyakarta Ad-

ministrative Court which adjudicates land dis-

putes is mostly in the form of a ”NO” verdicts,

which are as many as 6 out of 12 disputes. This

happened because the lawsuit registered was of-

ten made in such a way by the Advocates, as if

it should be examined up to the point of the case.

After examining the subject matter, through veri-

ﬁcation and examination of witnesses, it was dis-

covered that the exception was the object of the

dispute.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, H. U. (2010). Beberapa aspek dalam hukum ma-

teriil dan hukum formal peradilan tata usaha negara.

Istijab, I. (2018). Penyelesaian sengketa tanah sesudah

berlakunya undang-undang pokok agraria. Widya

Yuridika, 1(1).

kompas.com (2018). Ombudsman: Sengketa tanah aduan

paling tinggi dalam bidang pertanahan.

Limbong, B. (2012). Konﬂik pertanahan. Margaretha Pus-

taka.

Putrijanti, A. (2015). Kewenangan serta obyek sengketa di

peradilan tata usaha negara setelah ada uu no. 30/2014

tentang administrasi pemerintahan. Masalah-Masalah

Hukum, 44(4):425–430.

Putrijanti, A. and Leonard, L. T. (2019). Kompetensi per-

atun untuk memeriksa unsur penyalahgunaan wewe-

nang. Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan,

7(1):107–127.

SANTOSO, B. T. and SADJIJONO, N. (2018). Keputu-

san ﬁktif positif sebagai bentuk reformasi birokrasi

berdasarkan prinsip good governance/ﬁctive positive

decision as a form of bureaucratic reform based on the

good governance principles. Jurnal Hukum Peratun,

1(1).

Setiawan, Y. and Hadiatmodjo, B. D. Cacat yuridis dalam

prosedur sebagai alasan pembatalan sertiﬁkat hak atas

tanah oleh pradilan tata usaha negara. Jurnal Equality,

13.

Simanjuntak, E. (2017). Esensi sengketa administrasi per-

tanahan di peradilan tata usaha negara. BHUMI: Jur-

nal Agraria dan Pertanahan, 3(2):171–188.

Syaha, A. (2016). Eksistensi peradilan tata usaha negara

(ptun) dalam mewujudkan suatu pemerintahan yang

baik. Justice Pro: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 3(2).

Wahyunadi, Y. M. (2016). Kompetensi absolut pengadi-

lan tata usaha negara dalam konteks undang-undang

nomor 30 tahun 2014 tentang administrasi pemerinta-

han. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 5(1):135–154.

ICASESS 2019 - International Conference on Applied Science, Engineering and Social Science

108