Daftar Isi:
  • The implementation of Article 32 section (2) of Governmental Regulation No.24 year 1997 by judges in solving the land dispute was still causing differences. This Article not yet includes the judge in deciding the dispute. The implementation of this Article was still depends on judge consideration whether will be fair to the lawsuits. Because there are two business that impinge each other, that is, if the Plaintiff was really had the authentic right of the land and the Sued was really had the right of the land with good faith. So, the application of this Article to solving this dispute is in judge authority that judging the case. The existence of this Article is still makes difference opinion both theoretician and practitioner of low and also people who have the certificate. Generally, the practitioners in law that directly corresponding to the land dispute solving (judge and lawyer) clarify the objection to the implementation of this Article, while the practitioners in law that directly corresponding to the land registering (Functionary of Act of Law Maker and Functionary of Land Affair Office) and the people who have the certificate clarify agreed with the implementation of this Article in solving the land registering problems. The Point of the existence of Article 32 section (2) of Governmental Regulation No.24 year 1997 was asking the attention of court, especially judge that deciding the dispute, that there was rechtverwerking concept, that is the basic concept of this Article that have already implemented many times by Supreme Court in solving the land dispute in Indonesia. Generally, the opinion that agreed with the Implementation of this Article because can be assumed to give the rule of law guarantee to the owner of certificate of land right. While, the opinion from who disagreed the implementation of this Article because of afraid to be injustice to the real owner, because the right owner could lose the real right they really have