AKIBAT HUKUM KEBIJAKAN DEREGULASI PENINGKATAN HAK ATAS TANAH PERUMAHAN TERHADAP PERJANJIAN KPR YANG MEMUAT KLAUSULA PEMBEBANAN HAK TANGGUNGAN

Menjelang pergantian Pemerintahan Orde Baru oleh Pemerintahan “Reformasi” pada penghujung Tahun 1997-1998, terjadi perkembangan menarik menyangkut Deregulasi Kebijakan Pertanahan Nasional, ketika pemerintah secara berturut-turut mengeluarkan 5 (lima) Keputusan Menteri Negara Agraria/Kepala BPN tentang Deregulasi Perubahan Hak Guna Bangunan (HGB) atau Pemberian Hak Milik (HM) Atas Tanah Perumahan. Kebijakan deregulatif ini semula ditujukan untuk masyarakat Golongan Ekonomi Lemah (GEL) dengan Kategori Rumah Sangat Sederhana dan Rumah Sederhana (RSS/RS), yang pada umumnya mereka peroleh dari Fasilitas Kredit Pemilikan Pemilikan Rumah (KPR) dari Bank Pemerintah (KPR-BTN). Namun kemudian, Kebijakan itu diperluas berlakunya dan atau diberikan juga kepada pemegang Hak atas tanah yang habis masa berlakunya; termasuk Untuk rumah tinggal yang dibeli PNS dari Pemerintah, serta pemberian HM untuk rumah tinggal yang luas tanahnya tidak lebih dari 600 m2. Kebijakan deregulatif peningkatan Hak atas perumahan untuk Golongan Ekonomi Lemah (GEL) itu tidak serta merta dimanfaatkan dengan baik oleh masyarakat, karena banyak faktor yang mempengaruhi. Disisi lain, Realisasi proses perubahan HGB menjadi HM oleh pihak kreditur/Bank disinyalir tidak dilaksanakan secara benar dan konsisten, sehingga dapat menimbulkan akibat hukum terhadap para pihak dalam Perjanjian KPR. Temuan di lapangan menunjukkan sebagai berikut : (1) faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi pemegang hak mengajukan peningkatan HGB menjadi HM adalah, (1.1.) faktor pendorong (a) Perubahan HGB menjadi HM akan memberikan kepastian hak tanpa batas waktu berlaku;(b) status HM memberikan ketentraman psikologis dalam rumah tangga;(c) Peningkatan HGB menjadi HM dapat meningkatkan Harga jual atau nilai ekonomis tanah;(d) Peningkatan HGB menjadi HM diharapkan dapat menambah jumlah pinjaman; dan (e) Prosedur perubahan HGB menjadi HM lebih sederhana (deregulatif); sedangkan (1.2.) faktor penghambat (a) pemegang hak merasa kesulitan mendapat persetujuan pihak kreditur/Bank;(b) menurut mereka, biaya jasa notaris mahal;(c) biaya formulir permohonan perubahan hak di BPN tidak sesuai tarif resmi;(d) Perubahan HGB menjadi HM tidak mendesak (urgen);(e) biaya yang akan mereka keluarkan lebih besar daripada manfaat yang akan diperoleh; dan (f) Developer tidak memberikan opsi peningkatan hak kepada Konsumen menjelang transaksi jualbeli. Realisasi perubahan/peningkatan HGB menjadi HM tidak langsung diikuti dengan perubahan dokumen yuridis, seperti perubahan akad kredit, APHT, SKMHT dan sertifikat HT, padahal obyek haknya sudah berubah; Akibat Hukum yang dapat timbul adalah diantara para pihak, tidak lagi terikat pada klausul agunan kredit atau klausul pembebanan hak tanggungan dalam Perjanjian KPR. Implikasi yuridis lain, dengan demikian, kedudukan Kreditur/Bank tidak lagi sebagai kreditur preference atau yang diutamakan diantara kreditur- kreditur lain. Kata Kunci : Kebijakan Deregulasi; Peningkatan Hak Atas Tanah; Perjanjian KPR; Klausula Pembebanan Hak Tanggungan; HGB; Hak Milik ABSTRACT There was an interesting development regarding The Deregulation of the National Land Policy at the end of Orde Baru era (the late 1997-1998). The Government at that time enacted 5 (five) The Decree of State Minister of Agraria/Head of National Land Agency regarding the The Deregulation on the change of the Rights of Usage of The Building (Hak Guna Bangunan) to the Rights of Ownership (Hak Milik/HM) toward Housing Complex land. The object of this policy used to be a Low-Economic Society where the categories are A very simple house (rumah sangat sederhana) and A simple house (rumah sederhana),with which in general the owners get the special credit for housing complex from the state bank (in this case is BTN). As time goes by, the policy stated that it has wider coverage and or it is also given to the land right holders whose certificate is already not valid, including the houses bought by State servant from the government, and also for the houses where the land is not more than 600 M2. The existence of the policy regarding the Deregulation on the Increasing of the land right toward the housing complex for Low-Economic Society gives many advantages but in fact there are still a lot of people who do not use this facility. It is all because there are several factors which influence the right holders to implement the change from Right of Usage of The Building to Rights of Ownership or one which contains land mortage Clausal. On the other hand, the process of the changing from Right of Usage of Building to Rights of Ownership by the creditor is not conducted correctly and consistently, that produce the Consequences of the law for the parties-especially the creditor- which is bonded with the main agreement in the form of KPR agreement. The data found on the field are as follow: (1) The factors that influence the right holder to propose the change from Right of Usage of Building to Rights of Ownership are: (1.1) Positive factors (a) the change from Right of Usage of Building to Rights of Ownership will make sure that there is no time limitation on the right; (b) The status of Rights of Ownership gives the psychological comfortableness for the family; (c) The change from Right of Usage of Building to Rights of Ownership rises the economic value; (d) The change from Right of Usage of Building to Rights of Ownership is expected to add the amount of credit; (e) The procedure of the change from Right of Usage of Building to Rights of Ownership is simpler (deregulative); while the negative factors are: (a) The right holders feel the difficulties in getting the agreement from the creditor/bank; (b) according to them, the notaries fee is expensive; (c) The fee for the change proposal form in BPN is not as stated as in the rules (more expensive); (d) The change from Right of Usage of Building to Rights of Ownership is not urgent; (e) The expense will be bigger than the advantage they will get; and (f) The developer did not give any option to the customer regarding the change from Right of Usage of Building to Rights of Ownership when the transaction would be held. The Implementation of the change from Right of Usage of Building to Rights of Ownership is not followed by the change on the juridical documents, such as Akad kredit, APHT, SKMHT and the certificate whereas the object has changed. Consequences of law which raises is that the parties are no longer bonded on the Agunan Credit Agreement or land mortgage clausal in the KPR agreement. The other Juridical Implication is that, the position of the creditor is no longer a preference creditor or the one who must be taken into the first consideration. Key Words : Deregulation Policy; Increasing of The Land Right; The Rights of Usage of The Building (HGB); Rights of Ownership (HM); Special Credit Agreement for Housing Complex (KPR); Land Mortgage Clausal