Introduction
The concept of Rechtsverwerking is a declaration that the person no longer wants to exercise the rights he/she has. A statement can be given expressly or tacitly. If the act of rechtsverwerking is given expressly, people are more likely to call it the releasing rights term or debt release. If the rechtsverwerking attitude is done with a tacit statement, then the rechtsverwerking action is concluded from the attitude, words or actions – usually also accompanied by certain circumstances – which may not be intended to express rechtsverwerking, but should be interpreted as such by third parties, as conveyed by J. Satrio in his book titled Pelepasan Hak, Pembebasan Hutang dan Merelakan Hak (Rechtsverwerking).1
Satrio in the same book explains that remaining silent may have legal consequences. The silent attitude, accompanied by or in certain circumstances can be interpreted as a statement, including as a statement of relinquishing rights2. Furthermore, there is confirmation from the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 329 K / Sip / 1957 stating: “a person who allows the land to which he is entitled for 18 (eighteen) years to be possessed by another person is deemed to have relinquished the right to the land (rechtsverwerking).
In the jurisprudence that will be discussed this time, there is a view of the Panel of Judges that links the loss of rights in rechtsverwerking as one of the reasons for the loss of interest in suing (point d’interet, point d’action).
Case Summary
Decision Number 26/G/2020/PTUN.Mtr – Mataram State Administrative Court
In this case, the Claimants sued the Head of the East Lombok Land Office (Defendant) and Sahdan (Defendant II Intervention) over the object of the lawsuit, a certificate of ownership (SHM) in the name of Sahdan with an area of 3709m2. The Claimants argued that the SHM was detrimental to the Claimants and that the Claimants had an interest in the disputed object based on an inheritance from Amaq Nurisah. In the petitum of the lawsuit, the Claimants requested to revoke the SHM on the disputed object and declare the SHM invalid.
In the Defendant’s and Defendant II Intervention’s exceptions, it was found that the disputed object had not been possessed by the Claimants for 36 years and was not disputed by the Claimants at all. Furthermore, Defendant II Intervention argued that with this fact there had been Rechtsverwerking carried out by the Claimants by including several following jurisprudences:
- “By not filing a lawsuit to the District Court for 24 years regarding the inheritance from his mother, the claimant who later filed a lawsuit, is considered to have waived his rights” (Surabaya High Court, dated 24 November 1952)
- “The High Court’s reasoning was upheld by the Supreme Court. As the claimants had allowed the disputed land to be occupied by the late Mrs. Ratiem and later by her children for over 30 years, their right as the other heirs of the late Atma to claim the land was well overdue (rechtsverwerking). The objection raised by the claimant for cassation that customary law does not recognize expiry in the case of inheritance cannot be justified, because the lawsuit has been rejected not on the grounds of the expiry of the lawsuit, but because by staying silent for more than 30 years the claimant is considered to have waived his rights (rechtsverwerking)” (Supreme Court Decision Number 200K/Sip/1974 dated 11 December 1975).
Therefore, Defendant II Intervention argues that the Claimants do not have Legal Standing to claim over the disputed object.
Legal Considerations
In legal considerations, the Panel of Judges first considered the interests of the Claimants to file a lawsuit as the principle of point de’interet, point de’action or no interest, no action on the basis of Article 53 paragraph (1) of Law on State Administrative Courts (UU PTUN) which stipulates that persons or legal entities who feel that their interests have been harmed by a State Administrative Decision may file a written lawsuit with the competent Court containing a demand that the disputed State Administrative Decision be declared null or invalid, with or without a claim for compensation and/or rehabilitation.
Then the Panel of Judges used the doctrine presented by Indroharto in his book entitled Usaha Memahami Undang–Undang Tentang Peradilan Tata Usaha Negara, Buku II Beracara di Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara, which explains that interest in relation to filing a lawsuit to the State Administrative Court has two meanings, namely:
- Points to a value that should be protected by law; and
- Process interests, meaning what is to be achieved by conducting the relevant lawsuit process.
Furthermore, the meaning of the value that must be protected by law is a value that is affected or reasonably assessed to be expected beneficial or detrimental arising from the issuance of a state administrative decision or the rejection of a state administrative decision, and what is meant by the interests of the process is the goal to be achieved by the lawsuit or in other words the purpose of organizing the process by the initiator of the case.
The Panel of Judges explained that the Defendant II Intervention’s exception regarding the Claimants not having legal standing to file a lawsuit at the Mataram State Administrative Court had legal grounds to be admitted, considering that the Claimants did not have an interest that was harmed as a result of the issuance of the object of dispute a quo, both in terms of values that must be protected by law and in terms of process interests on the basis that the Claimants did not have a legal relation with the object of dispute. This means that the Panel of Judges by itself examined and concluded that the rechtsverwerking did occur and as a result, no ownership of the land, and therefore, no legal relationship. This is philosophically different than what Indroharto had explained. Indroharto refers to the values that must be legally protected. These values do not refer only to written evidence or document but also covering justice and morality. While the judges construed that the non-legal ownership e.g., non possesion of disputed land for long period causing rechtsverwerking (no legal ownership), as part of legal values.
Concerning the admittance of Defendant II Intervention’s on the Claimants’ legal standing, the subject matter of the dispute no longer needs to be considered, and the Claimants’ lawsuit is declared as inadmissible.
Closing
In this case, the rechtsverwerking carried out by the Claimants has implications for the loss of rights to the object of the lawsuit and continues to not fulfill one of the elements of interest, namely not showing the value that must be protected by law, this derives from the Claimants not having rights to the object of the lawsuit (the disputed area of land) which implies that the Claimants do not have a causal relationship with the object of the lawsuit. So that the Claimants do not have an interest in the object of the lawsuit. When there is no legal ownership, there is no legal relationship, and therefore, no legal interest.
Irwansyah Dhiaulhaq
