Sanjaya, Adhitya Putra (2020) Analisis Yuridis Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Pekanbaru Nomor 166/Pid.B/2016/Pt.Pbr Terkait Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Bagi Ppat Dalam Pembuatan Akta Atas Dasar Keterangan Palsu Oleh Penghadap. Magister thesis, Universitas Brawijaya.
Abstract
Bahwa akta autentik yang dibuat oleh PPAT selain digunakan sebagai syarat pendaftaran hak atas tanah, akta autentik yang dibuat oleh PPAT juga berfungsi sebagai alat bukti jika terjadi permasalahan/sengketa dikemudian hari. Faktanya permasalahan pidana maupun perdata yang timbul setelah akta tersebut dibuat, karena adanya kerterangan palsu sebagaimana kajian dalam Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Pekanbaru Nomor 166/PID.B/2016/PT.PBR. banyaknya permasalahan yang terjadi membuat banyak PPAT yang dipanggil oleh penegak hukum untuk dimintai keterangannya. Seorang PPAT berkewajiban untuk merahasiakan semua apa yang diberitahukan kepadanya. Berdasarkan hal tersebut maka rumusan masalah antara lain : (1) Apa dasar pertimbangan hakim dalam Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Pekanbaru Nomor 166/PID.B/2016/PT.PBR terkait pertanggungjawaban pidana bagi PPAT dan apakah putusan tersebut sesuai dengan hukum yang berlaku dan (2) Apakah penjatuhan pidana terhaadap PPAT dalam Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Pekanbaru Nomor 166/PidB/2016/PT.PBR telah sesuai dengan prinsip kepastian hukum ? Tipe penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif, menggunakan tiga macam pendekatan, yakni pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual serta pendekatan kasus. Pengumpulan bahan hukum dengan metode mengklasifikasikan, mengkategorisasikan dan menginventarisasi bahan-bahan hukum yang dipakai dalam menganalisis dan memecahkan permasalahan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dapat dikemukakan bahwa : Ratio decidendi (pertimbangan hukum) dalam Putusan Nomor 166/PID.B/2016/PT.PBR, bahwasanya akibat dari perbuatan terdakwa Puji Sunanto, SH, SPN bin Slamet Basoeki yang telah menggunakan Akte Jual Beli Nomor 68 Tahun 2012 tanggal 27 September 2012 yang ternyata palsu tersebut dalam pengurusan proses balik nama SHM nomor 4602, saksi NURBAINI ALIAS BUBENI BINTI SIDI NAALI (Alm) dan saksi Marizon Als Jon Bob Bin Amirsyam (Alm) telah mengalami kerugian lebih kurang Rp.2.000.000.000,- (dua milyar rupiah). Perbuatan terdakwa sebagaimana diatur dan diancam pidana dalam Pasal 263 ayat (1) KUH Pidana. Terdakwa Puji Sunanto, SH, SPN bin Slamet Basoeki, telah terbukti secara sah dan meyakinkan melakukan tindak pidana pemalsuan surat berupa Akta Jual Beli (AJB) yang dilakukan Terdakwa Puji Sunanto, SH, SPN bin Slamet Basoeki bersama-sama dan ikut melakukan, yang menyuruh melakukan, dan turut serat melakukan perbuatan dengan Para Saksi. Berkaitan dengan pertanggungjawaban xi pidana, seorang PPAT dapat dikenakan pidana penyertaaan yang ada pada Pasal 263 ayat (1) jo 55 dan Pasal 56 angka (1) dan (2) KUH Pidana. Dalam PPAT melakukan tindak pidana, maka tentu saja PPAT dapat diminta pertanggungjawaban di bawah hukum pidana. Penjatuhan pidana terhadap PPАT dаlаm Putusаn Pеngаdіlаn Tіnggі Pеkаnbаru Nоmоr 166/PІD.B/2016/PT.PBR tidak sesuai apabila dikaitkan dengan prinsip kepastian hukum. Dalam kaitannya dengan Pasal 263 ayat 1 KUHP bahwa akta PPAT tidak bisa serta merta dipersamakan dengan surat pada umumnya karena dari kaedah pembuatannya yang berbeda. Terhadap PPAT sebagai terdakwa lebih tepat diberikan dakwaan Pasal 266 ayat (1) KUHP. Ketentuan Pasal 266 ayat (1) KUHP, yang menjadi subyek (pelaku), yaitu yang menyuruh memasukkan keterangan palsu dan kata menyuruh merupakan bagian yang sangat penting (bestanddeel) dari Pasal 266 ayat (1) KUHP. Pembuat akte dalam hal ini PPAT bukan sebagai subyek (pelaku) dalam Pasal 266 ayat (1) KUHP, akan tetapi para pihak pembuat akte otentik tersebutlah yang sebagai subyek (pelaku), karena merekalah yang sebagai menyuruh memasukkan keterangan palsu. Pеmіdаnааn tеrhаdаp PPАT dаpаt sаjа dіlаkukаn dеngаn bаtаsаn, jіkа : (1) Аdа tіndаkаn hukum dаrі PPАT tеrhаdаp аspеk fоrmаl аktа yаng sеngаjа, pеnuh kеsаdаrаn dаn kеіnsyаfаn sеrtа dіrеncаnаkаn, bаhwа аktа dіbuаt dі hаdаpаn PPАT аtаu оlеh PPАT bеrsаmа- sаmа/sеpаkаt untuk dіjаdіkаn dаsаr untuk mеlаkukаn suаtu tіndаk pіdаnа ; (2) Аdа tіndаkаn hukum dаrі PPАT dаlаm mеmbuаt аktа dі hаdаpаn аtаu оlеh PPАT yаng dіlаkukаn tіdаk sеsuаі dеngаn kеtеntuаn yаng bеrlаku dаn (3) Tіndаkаn Nоtаrіs tеrsеbut tіdаk sеsuаі mеnurut іnstаnsі yаng bеrwеnаng untuk mеnіlаі tіndаkаn suаtu PPАT.
English Abstract
An authentic deed issued by a land deed official not only serves as the basic requirement in the registration of right to land, but also as evidence in case of issues/disputes that arise on the following days. However, some issues arising after the signing of the deed are concerning fake information given by the parties involved, as in the Decision of High Court of Pekanbaru Number 166/PID.B/2016/PT.PBR. Such issues often require the summoning of the Land Deed Official to testify. A land deed official is required to keep things confidential, including information given by clients. Based on this problem, this research is focused on studying: (1) what is the judge’s basic consideration in the Decision of High Court of Pekanbaru regarding the liability held by the Land Deed Official and is the decision relevant to the current law? and (2) is the punishment imposed for the Land Deed Official based on the Court Decision of Pekanbaru relevant to the principles of legal certainty? This research was conducted based on normative juridical method with statute, conceptual, and case approaches. The data was collected by classifying, categorising, and inventorying legal materials used to analyse and resolve problems. The research result finds out that Ratio Decidendi (legal consideration) in the Decision Number 166/PID.B/2016/PT.PBR is that the defendant Puji Sunanto, SH., SPN bin Slamet Basoeki who used Sale and Purchase Deed Number 68 of 2012 dated 27th of September 2012 which was found fake in the process of title transfer of Freehold Title Number 4602 has caused loss that affected Nurbaini aka Bubeni Binti Sidi Naali (the Late) and Marizon Als Jon Bob Bin Amirsyam (the Late) as witnesses for as much as IDR. 2,000,000,000 (two billions rupiahs). This conduct is punishable by law as regulated in Article 263 paragraph (1) of Criminal Code. The defendant Puji Sunanto, SH, SPN bin Slamet Basoeki, was legally proven guilty of giving fake information in the form of Sale Deed, where the notary was proven to commit it, told the parties to do it, and was involved in committing it along with witnesses. In terms of criminal liability, this jointly committed crime can lead to punishment imposed based on Article 263 paragraph (1) in conjunction to Article 55 and Article 56 point (1) and (2) of Criminal Code. In such a case, the Land Deed Official concerned also holds liability under criminal law. The punishment imposed for the Land Deed official based on the High Court Decision of Pekanbaru mentioned earlier is not relevant when it is related to the principle of legal certainty. Regarding Article 263 xiii paragraph 1 of Criminal Code, the deed issued by the Land Deed Official is not simply equal to other types of documents due to different process taking place in its issuance. The Land Deed Official, in this case, should have been imposed with the punishment that refers to Article 266 paragraph (1) of Criminal Code. The provision in Article 266 paragraph (1) suggests that the perpetrator is a person who makes another put fake information, and the word ‘make’ is the essential part to consider (bestanddeel) in Article 266 paragraph (1) of Criminal Code. In this deed making, the Land Deed Official cannot be deemed a perpetrator based on Article 266 paragraph (1) of Criminal Code, but the parties involved in the authentic deed should have been the perpetrators, since they initiated to put the fake information. The punishment can be imposed with restriction: (1) there is perpetration committed intentionally, with full awareness, and with plan by a Land Deed Official or along with other parties, intended to commit a crime; (2) there is perpetration from a Land Deed Official in making the deed before or by the official, which is done not according to the current legal provisions and (3) the deed performed by a Notary is not relevant to a body authorised to judge a deed performed by Land Deed Official.
Other obstract
-
| Item Type: | Thesis (Magister) |
|---|---|
| Identification Number: | TES/347.016/SAN/a/2020/042002016 |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | NOTARIES--LAW AND LEGISLATION, DEEDS |
| Subjects: | 300 Social sciences > 347 Procedure and courts > 347.01 Courts > 347.016 Other officials |
| Divisions: | S2/S3 > Magister Kenotariatan, Fakultas Hukum |
| Depositing User: | Endang Susworini |
| Date Deposited: | 04 Mar 2020 08:19 |
| Last Modified: | 13 Jan 2023 04:18 |
| URI: | http://repository.ub.ac.id/id/eprint/179895 |
![[thumbnail of DALAM MASA EMBARGO]](http://repository.ub.ac.id/style/images/fileicons/text.png) |
Text (DALAM MASA EMBARGO)
Adhitya Putra Sanjaya (2).pdf Restricted to Registered users only until 31 December 2023. Download (5MB) |
Actions (login required)
 |
View Item |