Disregarding law<\/p>\n
When a lawsuit concerning the revocation of a house occupancy
\npermit (SIP) was being examined by the Medan State Administrative
\nCourt (PTUN), suddenly the head of the Medan office of population
\naffairs (KUP), Chairul Ichwan Lubis, evicted the occupants of the
\nhouse at Jl. Kartini 15, Medan, North Sumatra. The house was
\noriginally owned by a Dutch family. The present occupants lived
\nthere for 37 years (1961 to 1998). This inhumane eviction was
\ncarried out under the instruction of president director of state
\nplantation company PTPN IV, Zaini Taibin, who allegedly paid
\nmillions of rupiah to various relevant government agencies.<\/p>\n
The occupants were subjected to oppression and sadistic
\ntreatment merely because they are of Chinese descent. Even more
\nsadistic, PTPN IV made it public through the SIB newspaper that
\nthieves had broken into the house owned by PTPN IV, while the
\nfact of the matter was that the occupants had reentered the
\nhouse.<\/p>\n
The head of the security unit of PTPN IV (PAPAM PTPN IV), Lt.
\nCol. Ganda Ginting, demonstrated his racism when he broke down
\nthe door to the house by kicking it in and shouted: \"The Chinese
\nmust be forcibly evicted from this house.\"<\/p>\n
The occupants obtained a SIP on the said house as replacement
\nfor their house on Jl. Bintang, which had been appropriated for a
\nshop-house compound. Obviously, the occupancy of the house had
\nnothing to do with PTP, as confirmed in a memorandum issued by
\nCommercial\/General Affairs director Dr. Tarigan. The memorandum,
\nNo. 06.1\/M553\/1991 dated June 27, 1991, acknowledges that the
\nhouse was not registered as an asset of PTPN VI as of the period
\nending Dec. 31, 1991.<\/p>\n
The reason for the revocation of the SIP is that the SIP
\nholder, my father, died in 1984 and that the occupants were
\ndeclared as having lost their case at the Medan High Court. The
\nruling of the Medan High Court stipulated that the ruling of the
\ndistrict court (which had ruled in the occupants' favor) should
\nbe rejected owing to an administrative problem, namely that the
\nlawsuit should have been addressed to PTP VI and not the
\npresident director. Obviously, this ruling never stated that the
\nasset (the house) was the property of PTP VI or that eviction was
\nnot ordered by the district court.<\/p>\n
It is worth mentioning at this juncture that with respect to a
\nhouse located at Jl. KH Zainal Arifin 135, Medan, of which the
\nSIP has been revoked because of the death of the SIP holder, the
\nrulings of the Medan State Administrative Court and the Medan
\nState Administrative High Court stipulate that a new SIP should
\nbe issued to the child of the SIP holder under the child's name.<\/p>\n
Why is it that the fate of the occupants of the house at Jl.
\nKartini 15, Medan, is different? Most of the house has been
\ndemolished, while the roof and the door\/windows have all be
\nremoved. Reportedly, the house has been offered to employees of
\nPTPN IV on a tender basis and one can certainly guess who has won
\nthe tender. Ironically, in its recent ruling, the Medan State
\nAdministrative High Court stipulated that the
\nrevocation\/cancellation of the SIP by the head of Medan KUP was
\nnot valid.<\/p>\n
I hope to get some advice from readers and legal experts about
\na just settlement in this house\/land dispute.<\/p>\n
ELLY YUNITA<\/p>\n
On behalf of SIP holder<\/p>\n
Bekasi, West Java<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/disregarding-law-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }