Bambang Eko Supriyadi
Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University Malang, Indonesia

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

Legal Certainty of The Temporary Abolition of Rights Under Article 53 Paragraph (1) of Agrarian Law Alivia Febriyanti; M. Hamidi Masykur; Bambang Eko Supriyadi
YURISDIKSI : Jurnal Wacana Hukum dan Sains Vol. 21 No. 4 (2026): March
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Merdeka University Surabaya, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55173/yurisdiksi.v21i4.328

Abstract

This study discusses legal certainty in the elimination of temporary rights, namely mortgage rights, profit-sharing rights, right to ride, and agricultural land lease rights, based on Article 53 paragraph (1) of the Basic Agrarian Law (UUPA). These temporary rights are a legacy of the colonial and customary systems that still give rise to legal uncertainty and agrarian conflicts. This study uses a normative-juridical approach with a literature study of laws and regulations, legal doctrine, and literature related to the principle of legal certainty. The results of the study indicate that the elimination of temporary rights must be implemented with the principle of legal certainty that emphasizes clarity of norms, consistency of application, and procedural openness. Legal certainty, as explained by Jan Michiel Otto, refers not only to the existence of written rules, but also to the effectiveness of implementation and real benefits for the community. In the context of Article 53 of the UUPA, the elimination of temporary rights must be accompanied by the transfer of rights to more permanent and registered forms of rights, such as ownership rights or use rights, thereby providing legal guarantees for farmers and the beneficiary community. This study emphasizes that the principle of legal certainty plays a strategic role in preventing arbitrary practices, reducing agrarian conflicts, and realizing social justice. With clear and consistent regulations, the elimination of temporary rights can support equitable land ownership, strengthen legal legitimacy, and improve public welfare. These findings suggest that the successful implementation of Article 53 of the UUPA depends heavily on the harmonization of written regulations, administrative practices, and public understanding of agricultural rights.
The Urgency of Regulating Priority Rights for Former Land Rights Holders Over Management Rights Maratul Muslimatus Salimah; Imam Koeswahyono; Bambang Eko Supriyadi
YURISDIKSI : Jurnal Wacana Hukum dan Sains Vol. 21 No. 4 (2026): March
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Merdeka University Surabaya, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.55173/yurisdiksi.v21i4.340

Abstract

Regulations regarding management rights are still considered sporadic and fragmented, making the substance of management rights difficult to understand. One of the authorities of the holder of management rights is to use and utilize all or part of the land with management rights for their own use or in collaboration with third parties through land utilization agreements. Third parties can utilize the part of the land that is collaborated with the right to cultivate, right to build, or right to use. As is known, land rights can be granted over state land and management rights. If the term of land rights over state land expires, the former holder of the land rights is given priority rights to extend the land rights. This is different from land rights over management rights, where currently there are no regulations regarding the granting of priority rights to former rights holders. Third parties who utilize land with management rights properly and in accordance with spatial plans should be given priority rights to extend the land rights over management rights. This type of research is normative legal research with a statutory regulatory approach, a case approach, a conceptual approach, and a historical approach. The results of this study indicate that there is an urgency to regulate the priority rights of former holders of land rights over management rights, considering that the substance of management rights is part of the state's right to control. Thus, the characteristics of management rights in the context of land use agreements by third parties are in line with the objectives of the state's right to control, namely for the greatest prosperity of the people.