Abstract

The land categorized with former right of land usage (furthermore will be mentioned as Eigendom Verponding) is recorded as an asset of the Surabaya City Government in Registry Number 2381810. It has been decided by the Surabaya District Court in a Civil case Number : 625/pdt.G/2008/PN.Surabaya, dated July 28, 2009 as the object of the case. The decision was confirmed by the Judicial Review Decision of Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia or PK Decision Number : 409PK/Pdt/2017, dated 19 October 2017 which states that the public has the right to apply for Building Usage Right (or SHGB). GS Regulation No. 400/S/1991 is declared invalid and has no legal force as the basis for recording the asset. It shows tangible manifestation of the occurrence of conflict of norms between Article 2 of the Land Act and the provisions of Conversion of Act Number 1 of 2004 as well as its implementing regulations. Based on the legal aspects in the description of the background, the problems can be formulated, namely (1) the principle of legal certainty for the elimination of Surabaya City Government assets in the release of rights to state lands of the former eigendom verponding (2) Legal protection of holders of rights to former eigendom verponding state lands registered as assets of the City Government Surabaya. This dissertation uses normative legal research methods with statutory, case, historical, conceptual and philosophical approaches to analyze and find legal certainty in the norms for elimination of Government assets based on Act 1 of 2004, Government Regulation 27 of 2014, Domestic Affairs Ministry Regulation 19 of 2016, Surabaya Regional Regulation 14 of 2012 concerning Management of Regional Property. The findings of this dissertation, attributively the Surabaya City Government, do not carry out court decisions that have legal-binding fore with consideration of the Legal Opinion of the Prosecutor's Office. Based on the principle of preference as regulated in Act 12 of 2011, that Legal Opinion is not a statutory regulation, so that hierarchically, the Surabaya City Government does not carry out the General Principles of Good Governance and commits legal deviations resulting in no legal certainty and legal protection based on Law Number 30 of 2014 concerning Government Administration. Therefore, the function of regional legislatures, especially in controlling and supervising functions in relation to disputes concerning assets, should be able to provide recommendations and approvals for asset write-offs for the creation of General Principles of Good Governance in order to provide legal certainty and protection.

Keywords