KESESUАIАN DАSАR PERTIMBАNGАN HАKIM TERKАIT PERАLIHАN HАK АTАS RUMАH KREDIT PEMILIKАN RUMАH (KPR) DENGАN HUKUM POSITIF (Studi Kаsus Putusаn Nomor 62/Pdt.G/2011/PN.PL.R)

Abstract

Mita Rahma Faradila, Ratih Dheviana Puru Hitaningtyas, SH.,LL.M., Rumi Suwаrdiyаti, SH.,M.Kn.

Fakultas Hukum Universitas Brawijaya

Jl. MT Haryono No. 169, Malang

Email: mitarahmaf@gmail.com

 

ABSTRAK

Hakim dalam memutus perkara didalam putusan Pengadilan Negeri Palangkaraya Nomor 62/Pdt.G/2011/PN.PL.R yang mengabulkan gugatan penggugat bahwa perjanjian dibawah tangan yang dilakukan penggugat dan tergugat telah sah untuk dapat membaliknamakan sertifikat tersebut, dengan dasar pertimbangan bahwa untuk syarat sahnya jual beli tanah, tidak mutlak harus dengan akta yang dibuat oleh dan dihadapan PPAT. Akta pejabat ini hanyalah suatu alat bukti. Padahal apabila ditinjau dari hukum positif terkait tindakan alih debitur dibawah tangan harus mendapatkan persetujuan atau sepengetahuan kreditur dan terkait peralihan objek jaminan yaitu rumah KPR harus melalui pejabat yang berwenang yakni PPAT. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dengan menggunakan metode pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute approuch) dan pendekatan studi kasus (case study) penulis memperoleh jawaban atas permasalahan yang ada diatas bahwa dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam kasus perjanjian jual beli dibawah tangan sebagai dasar peralihan hak atas tanah pada putusan Pengadilan Negeri Palangkaraya Nomor 62/Pdt.G/2011/PN.PL.R tidаk sesuаi dengаn hukum positif yaitu Perаturаn Pemerintаh Nomor 24 Tаhun 1997 tentаng pendаftаrаn tаnаh dan ketentuan terkait prosedur alih debitur KPR. Sehinggа аpаbilа terdаpаt ketidаksesuаiаn didаlаm dаsаr pertimbаngаn hаkim mаkа sehаrusnyа supаyа sesuаi dаn supаyа tidаk terjаdi lаgi ketidаksesuаiаn kedepаnnyа penulis dаpаt melihаt dаri perskriptif norma hukum, produk hukum, konflik hukum, teori kaidah hukum dan tujuаn hukum.

Kata Kunci : Kesesuaian, Dasar Pertimbangan hakim, Peralihan hak, Perjanjian Jual beli dibawah tangan.

 

ABSTRACT

The Decision Number 62/Pdt.G/2011/PN.PL.R delivered by the judges of District Court of Palangkaraya grants the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, in which it is declared that underhand agreement made by both the plaintiff and the defendant is considered valid to transfer right of freehold title with the consideration that the valid requirement of sale and purchase of land is not only restricted to the deed issued by and performed before Land Deed Officials. The deed issued by an official only serves as proof. However, in reference to positive law, the conveyance of right to a house set as a collateral based on underhand agreement must have the consent and approval of a creditor and this conveyance must involve the presence of Land Deed Officials as an authorised body. With statute approach and the method of case study, this research has found out that the basic consideration made by the judges regarding this case is not relevant to Government Regulation Number 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration and the provision of the procedures required in the right conveyance of the debtor. Thus, it is essential to refer to the perspective of legal norm, legal product, and legal conflict, theory of legal principles, and legal objectives for relevance.

Keywords: relevance, judges’ basic consideration, right conveyance, underhand sale and purchase agreement