Kisruh Lahan Itenas Bandung, Family Administrative Review Back To The Supreme Court

Rudy Marjono, attorney for the family of the late Sutjiati Bunarto, fought for land by Itenas Bandung/ Photo: IST

JAKARTA - The family of the late Sutjiati Bunarto questioned the attitude of the Supreme Court which annulled the decision of the Bandung High Court in the land dispute of the National Institute of Technology (Itenas). With this decision, Rudy Marjono as the legal representative for the heirs of the family of the late Sutjiati Bunarto took a review.

Rudy explained that the reason the family of the late Sutjiati Bunarto took the route of review was because the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia canceled the decision of the Bandung High Court which won the heirs. So, continued Rudy, the decision made the heirs feel disadvantaged.

"We have submitted an extraordinary legal action to review the decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 1801 K/Pdt/2021 dated August 18, 2021 jo. Decision of the Bandung High Court number 353/Pdt/2020/PT.BDG. dated September 25, 2020, jo. The decision of the Bandung District Court number 398/Pdt.G /2018/PN. Bdg. dated October 18, 2019, through the Bandung District Court on July 6, 2022, and has been legally registered with the re-view case register number: 14/Pdt.PK/2022/PN.Bdg. "explained Rudy by telephone, Thursday, July 7, evening.

In this case, said Rudy, there is no compensation or compensation for the heirs concerned. Rudy assessed that the reason for applying for this extraordinary legal effort was due to the discovery of irregularities.

Rudy explained that the victory of the Dayang Sumbi Foundation against the family of the late Sutjiati Bunarto was based on two things. The deed of statement and power of attorney that was made by the deceased in 1976 explained that the deceased had bought 4 plots of land in the aquo case using Foundation funds.

What is unusual is that someone bought land in 1974 but was later examined by the deed of statement and power made in 1976. This is strange and unusual, it's been 2 years since the land transaction was carried out by the deceased, a statement deed that describes himself as buying land from Foundation funds. It should have been if the deceased used foundation funds, the statement letter is usually made before the transaction. he explained.

On the other hand, Rudy said, so far the notary who made the two certificates was not withdrawn as parties in the case. He considered it important because the statement maker had long passed away and the statement letter could not be treated as a will that could bind the rights and obligations of third parties.

On that occasion, Rudy considered that the power of attorney would automatically die for the sake of the law if referring to Article 1813 BW. And if it is to be renewed, it must involve the heirs of the deceased. Regarding the absolute power of attorney made by the deceased in 1976 if based on the Instruction of the Minister of Home Affairs number 14 of 1982, the deed of power of the deceased can no longer be applied. Because, according to Rudy, the period of use has passed its time.

"Can't be the power of attorney that was made in the previous year before the enactment of the prohibition from the Minister of Home Affairs but is left unused until the year of prohibition. Then after the year the power ban will still continue to be used, it violates the legal norms name

Rudy hopes that in a review effort, his party will still get justice.