5 Interesting Cases that Become the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in Indonesia

 

(iStock)

By:

Team of Hukumindo

Previously, the www.hukumindo.com platform has talk about "The Characteristics of a Fraudulent Investment According to the Financial Services Authority (OJK)", "Examples of Fraudulent Spam Emails", "Understanding 5 Steps Foreign Direct Investment In Indonesia" you may read also "How To Report Online Scammer Or Fraud To The Police In Indonesia" and on this occasion we will discuss about '5 Interesting Cases that Become the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court in Indonesia'.

Have you ever traded with an element of 'coercion'? If so, you can sue because the sale and purchase can be cancelled. The above is 1 out of 5 cases that became the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (MA). As reported by the Supreme Court clerk, Monday (25/6/2012) the following five decisions are decisions that can be used as guidelines for judges in deciding similar cases:[1]

1. Buying and selling with elements of coercion. The case began when Budi Haliman Halim, who is the legal owner of the educational institution Arise Shine Ces. Later, on August 8, 2006, the Hwa Ing Fonds Foundation and Lo Iwan Setia Dharma policed ​​Budi on charges of copyright infringement. This report was followed up by detaining Budi. While in detention, the Hwa Ing Fonds Foundation forced Budi to sell the brand for IDR 400 million, while it was agreed to sell the brand to Lo Iwan Setia Dharma for IDR 400 million. Although recently, the IDR 400 million was never paid. As for the punishment, the Hwa Ing Fonds Foundation and Lo Iwan Setia Dharma have reconciled and have not continued the report. Is the sale and purchase of the brand legal? According to the Supreme Court, this is illegal and null and void. The Supreme Court assessed that at the time the sale and purchase agreement was drawn up, Budi was being held by the police because of reports from the Hwa Ing Fonds Foundation and Lo Iwan Setia Dharma to put pressure on Budi to make or approve the sale and purchase agreement. This is a 'Misbruik van Omstandigheiden' which can result in the agreement being cancelled, because it no longer fulfills the elements of Article 1320 of the Civil Code, namely that there is no free will on the part of the plaintiff.
2. Divorce Does Not Eliminate Debt. Divorce has many legal consequences. One of them is debts that occur when the marriage bond is still ongoing. If a husband and wife divorce, then whose debt is borne? Answering the above, the Supreme Court took the example of a divorce that occurred at the Religious Court (PA) Semarang. A husband and wife in 2003 had a debt of IDR 1 billion. Later they divorced resulting in a dispute over who bears the debt. Then on September 6, 2008 the Supreme Court made a decision that the debt was repaid from mixed assets. "The Supreme Court is of the opinion that the debts made by the parties while the marriage was in progress, these debts become a joint burden and responsibility, so the confiscation of collateral for joint assets (gono-gini) is valid and valuable," said the Supreme Court.
3. Regional Head Election Case at the Constitutional Court (MK). People are always looking for 'legal loopholes'. Dissatisfaction with the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) was no exception, which was finally brought to the general court. The case began when Dirwan Mahmud became a participant in the South Bengkulu post-conflict local election. In the first round, Dirwan won because he got 51.7 percent of the vote. However, this was canceled by the Constitutional Court because Dirwan had been convicted of a crime in 1985. Then, the Dirwan also challenged the Constitutional Court's decision to the Manna District Court, Bengkulu, so that the Constitutional Court's decision was null and void and must be considered as never having existed. This attempt was rejected by PN Manna and MA. What is the reason for MA? "The Supreme Court has no authority to evaluate and examine the Constitutional Court's decision. Even though the Supreme Court can understand the problem faced by the Dirwan, namely that the person concerned is not allowed to take part in the post-conflict local election, it is as if the Dirwan has had a civil death. However, in carrying out its authority as a general judicial institution, the Supreme Court cannot make corrections or test a decision from another Judicial institution such as the Supreme Court," wrote the Supreme Court decision.
4. Auction upon Auction. The case began when a house dispute occurred at Jalan Panjaitan No 153 A Medan, North Sumatra as a result of a struggle over an inheritance. Then the house was bought by Hassan Chandra in 1982. Later this case had a long tail. Both the heirs and Hassan filed an executional confiscation of the house. There were two court decisions ordering the execution of the auction. What is the attitude of the MA? "Cancellation of an auction that has been carried out based on a decision that has permanent legal force cannot be cancelled," said the Supreme Court. According to the Supreme Court, the buyer of the auction against the disputed object based on the Minutes of Auction and the Minutes of Auction which is based on a decision that has permanent legal force is an auction buyer who has good intentions and therefore must be protected. "If at a later date there is a decision that contradicts a decision that has permanent legal force and states that the decision that has permanent legal force is not binding, then that decision cannot be used as a reason to cancel the auction. What can be done is to demand compensation for the object of dispute from the applicant. auction," said MA.
5. Journalist Organizational Disputes. The case began when the West Papua branch of the Association of Indonesian Journalists (PWI) broke up to hold a 'Munaslub'. Then the losing party sued the Manokwari District Court to lose. Not accepting it, the losing side made an appeal to the Jayapura High Court on December 11 2009 and granted the appeal. Then the case went to the Supreme Court and on November 18 2010 it was decided by granting an appeal to amend the Manokwari District Court decision. What is the reason for MA? "The Supreme Court is of the opinion that if there is a crisis within PWI because the settlement has been regulated in the AD/ART and the Journalistic Code of Ethics, and is accounted for in the congress, then the crisis cannot be assessed as an unlawful act as referred to in Article 1365 of the Civil Code," said the Supreme Court clerk, Soeroso Ono.

And if you have any legal issue with this topic, contact us then, feel free in 24 hour, we will be happy to assist you. 

*) For further information please contact:

Mahmud Kusuma Advocate

Law Office

Jakarta - Indonesia.

E-mail: mahmudkusuma22@gmail.com

________________

References:

1. "5 Kasus Menarik yang Jadi Yurisprudensi MA", news.detik.com., Diakses pada tanggal 27 Januari 2023, Link: https://news.detik.com/berita/d-1950026/5-kasus-menarik-yang-jadi-yurisprudensi-ma.