The State Attorney (JPN) from the North Jakarta District Attorney's Office who was appointed by I Made Sudarmawan, SH., MH., Through Dody Witjaksono, SH., MH., As Kasi Datun represented by Irfano Rukmana Rachim, SH., MH., and friends who act as proxy under the Special Power of Attorney from the President Director (Managing Director) of PT. Pelabuhan Indonesia II (Pelindo) Persero as defendant I managed to save assets and state losses (PT. Pelindo II) hundreds of billions.
This was revealed as the decision of the Chairperson of the panel of judges Dodong Iman Rusdani, SH., MH., Accompanied by Sarwono, SH., MHum., And R. A Pontoh, SH., MHum., Which was read out in the trial of the decision agenda.
"Stating the plaintiff's claim PT. Artha Sempana (PT. AS) has no legal position to file a lawsuit with PT. Pelindo II, the lawsuit is lacking parties, and the claim is not based on law. Therefore, the plot of land located at Jalan Lodan, Ancol Village, Penjaringan District, North Jakarta, must be returned to the rightful owner, PT. Pelindo II (Persero), "said Chairman of the Panel of Judges at the North Jakarta District Court, Thursday (6/18-2020).
Where previously in consideration the panel of judges said, the plaintiff's claim PT. Artha Sempana (PT. AS) was represented by the Managing Director of PT. The US, Jose Alexander Hadi Anggono, gave power of attorney to Keng Joe Hok, SH, and Maillin Simorangkir, SH., Advocates from the Maj. Gen. (ret.) Law Office Superior K Yudoyono and Partners to file a claim for ownership over the disputed land.
However, as is well known, he continued, the plaintiff and those who controlled the parcels of land located in Jalan Lodan, Ancol Village, Penjaringan Subdistrict, North Jakarta, were purchased from Defendant I and Defendant II on March 24, 1992.
Whereas before the plaintiff obtained the land and building which were traded, the land was directly controlled by the leased state as in the Lease Agreement of State-Owned Goods on August 10, 1949.
Then a request was made for the construction of a building and was given a permit by the Jakarta City Directorate General of Civil Works Office on March 14, 1950.
He added, Defendant I obtained the Right to Manage Land (HPL) based on a request to the Minister of Domestic Affairs of the Agrarian Directorate on March 1, 1986, and a Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs was issued: 128 / HPL / DA / 86 dated December 17, 1986.
He continued, the land of the former Eigendom Verponding Right on March 2, 1920, based on the Minister of Home Affairs Regulation No. 2 of 1970, the former eigendom verponding right was converted to Right of Use and its rights expired on September 23, 1980.
In addition to the plaintiff's claim being unacceptable, he added, the plaintiff must also be approved to pay dwangsom (dwangsom) in the amount of Rp 10 million per day for each late implementation of the contents of the decision which has a fixed tax strength.
Because it is feared that the plaintiff did not want to do voluntarily which required the defendant not to be able to make a regulation of the Minister of State-Owned Enterprises (BUMN).
"The plaintiff collected this land based on the contract and the contract period expired sometime in 2013, but he did not want to go home and continue this land for Pelindo II," said Irfano Rukmana Rachim, SH., MH., Compilation in North Jakarta District Court.
He said, that the plaintiff had previously sued in court related to the land he owned, but the compilation had the court ruled NO, therefore PT. Pelindo II (Persero) gave the power of attorney to the State Attorney (JPN) to save the assets.
"After we from JPN sent a summons up to 3 times, suddenly PT. The US filed a lawsuit in North Jakarta District Court claiming the land was his. He continued, the land was leased/contracted, previously owned by the state (Pelindo II) based on the Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs and land that was optimized for the value of the land following that accessed by the funds, "he said.
"The plaintiff's claim is erroneous and has no legal basis by appealing to PT. Pelindo II as defendant I, because there is no legal relationship between the plaintiff and Pelindo II and the lawsuit is also not based on facts (ongegrond), "explained Irfano Rukmana Rachim, SH., MH.
Author / Editor: U. Aritonang