Perlindungan hak konstitusi warga negara dalam perkawinan campuran terhadap hak milik atas tanah dan hak guna bangunan : Telaah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No.69/PUU-XIII/2015

INDONESIA: Selama ini pelaku perkawinan campuran tidak dapat menikmati hak milik atas tanah maupun hak guna Bangunan apabila kedua belah pihak sebelumnya tidak mengadakan perjanjian perkawinan, sebab Undang-Undang No. 1 Tahun 1974 tentang perkawinan Pasal 29 ayat (1), dan, Pasal 29 ayat (3), Pasal 29 ayat (4). Hanya membolehkah perjanjian perkawinan sebelum perkawinan atau pada saat perkawinan berlangsung. Terlebih, undang-undang pokok agraria melarang hak milik maupun hak guna bangunan dinikmati oleh Warga Negara Asing hal tersebut yang menjadi dalil uji materi oleh Ike Farida pelaku perkawinan campuran yang kemudian digugatnya ke MK. Sehingga MK mengabulkan permohonan tersebut melalui putusan No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 dengan menafsirkan bahwa “perjanjian perkawinan dapat dilakukan selama perkawinan berlangsung”. Penelitian ini termasuk kategori yuridis-normatif, dengan menggunakan pendekatan kasus (case approach) sebagai bahan anlisa yaitu putusan MK No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015, bahan hokum berupa bahan hokum primer, sekunder, dan tersier berupa putusan, Undang-Undang maupun kamus hukum. Metode analisis data yang digunakan pada penelitian ini menggunakan analisis deskriptif. Hasil penelitan yang diperoleh peneliti, pertama adalah bahwa sebelum adanya putusan MK No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 pelaku perkawinan tidak dapat menikmati Hak Milik dan Hak Guna Bangunan sebab perjanjian perkawinan hanya dibatasi sebelum maupun pada saat perkawinan berlangsung, namun setelah putusan tersebut perjanjian perkawinan dapat dilakukan selama perkawinan tersebut berlangsung dan ketentuan tersebut menjadi pintu masuk untuk memperoleh hak milik dan hak guna bangunan. Hasil penelitan selanjutnya adalah MK dengan kewenangannya sebagai interpreuter tertinggi konstitusi dan pelindung hak konstitusional warga Negara memberikan tafsir ulang terhadap pasal-pasal tersebut sebab bertentangan dengan 28E ayat (2) UUD 1945 dimana seluruh warga Negara berhak dan bebas melakukan perjanjian. ENGLISH: During this time the perpetrators of mixed marriage can not enjoy the Property Right and The Right to Use the Building, if both sides previously did not entered into a marriage agreement, caused Act No. 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage Article 29 paragraph (1), and, Article 29 paragraph (3), Article 29 paragraph (4). Only allowing marriage agreements before marriage or at the time of marriage takes place. Moreover, The Basic Agrarian Law prohibits The Property rights as well as the the Right to Use the Building are enjoyed by foreigners, which is the argument of the judicial review by Ike Farida a Mixed marriage perpetrator then sued to the Constitutional Court. So the Constitutional Court granted the petition through a decision No. 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 by interpreting that "marriage agreements may be made during marriage" This research includes juridical-normative category, using a case-based approach (case approach) as a material, namely anlisa Court decision No. 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015, legal materials in the form of primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials in the form of decisions, laws and legal dictionaries. Methods of data analysis used in this research using descriptive analysis. Results of this research obtained by researchers, the first is that prior to the decision of the Constitutional Court No 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 marriage offender can not enjoy Property Right and The Right to Use the Building. Because marriage agreements are limited only before or marriage took place, But after such a decision a marriage agreement may be made during the marriage and the provision becomes the entry point for obtaining the Right and the Right to Build. But after such a decision a marriage agreement may be made during the marriage and the provision becomes the entry point for obtaining the Property Right and The Right to Use the Building. Further this research results are the Constitutional Court with its authority as the supreme interpreter of the constitution and the protector of the constitutional rights of the citizens to give reinterpretation of the articles because contrary to the 28E (2) of the 1945 Constitution in which all citizens are entitled and free to the agreement