Member since Jun '07

Working languages:
Indonesian to English
English to Indonesian

Ian Forbes
One of the best

Paraparaumu, New Zealand
Local time: 03:13 NZDT (GMT+13)

Native in: English Native in English
  • Send message through ProZ.com
Feedback from
clients and colleagues

on Willingness to Work Again info
6 positive reviews
This person has won one or more ProZ.com translation contests
This person is a top KudoZ point holder in Indonesian to English, English to Indonesian
User message
One of the best
Account type Freelance translator and/or interpreter, Identity Verified Verified member
Data security Created by Evelio Clavel-Rosales This person has a SecurePRO™ card. Because this person is not a ProZ.com Plus subscriber, to view his or her SecurePRO™ card you must be a ProZ.com Business member or Plus subscriber.
Affiliations This person is not affiliated with any business or Blue Board record at ProZ.com.
Services Translation, Interpreting, Editing/proofreading
Expertise
Specializes in:
Government / PoliticsReligion
Law (general)

KudoZ activity (PRO) PRO-level points: 747, Questions answered: 382, Questions asked: 6
Portfolio Sample translations submitted: 3
Indonesian to English: When loans go wrong
Source text - Indonesian
PELAKSANAAN EKSEKUSI
DALAM KASUS PERJANJIAN
HUTANG PIUTANG
Desita Sari, S.H
28 Oct 2003, 10:03:54 WIB - pemantauperadilan.com

POSISI KASUS

Kasus ini berawal dari peminjaman atas uang dan emas oleh Parlindungan Harahap (selanjutnya disebut sebagai Tergugat II) ) dan Nuria br. Simatupang (selanjutnya disebut Tergugat II) dari almarhum Imbalo Harahap pada tanggal 8 Juli 1978. Pinjaman tersebut diberikan dengan jaminan rumah dan pekarangan milik kedua tergugat. Dalam perjanjian utang-piutang tersebut dinyatakan bahwa Tergugat I dan Tergugat II akan melunasi utangnya pada tanggal 3 Januari 1979. Jatuh tempo pinjaman tersebut kemudian diperpanjang hingga tanggal 1 Mei 1979.

Ternyata sampai dengan tanggal jatuh tempo, Tergugat I dan Tergugat II tidak melunasi utang tersebut. Bahkan ketika Imbalo Harahap meninggal dunia, hutang tersebut belum juga dibayar. Sedangkan tanah jaminan berikut bangunan diatasnya, dengan tanpa hak, telah ditempati oleh Pendi Harahap, Deliana br Lubis, Ishak Pane dan Sayur Siregar (selanjutnya disebut Tergugat III, Tergugat IV, Tergugat V dan Tergugat VI). Atas piutang ini, Hj. Badariah Mawar Harahap (isteri almarhum Imbalo Harahap) kemudian mengajukan gugatan Wanprestasi ke PN Padang Sidempuan dengan nomor register 16/Pdt.G/1997PN.Psp.

Dalam putusannya, Majelis Hakim PN Padang Sidempuan memenangkan gugatan Penggugat untuk sebagian serta menghukum Tergugat I dan Tergugat II membayar hutang uang sebanyak Rp. ½ x 6.708.357 =Rp.3.354.178,5 kepada Penggugat. Selain itu, Majelis Hakim dalam putusannya juga menghukum Tergugat I dan Tergugat II membayar hutang emas 24 karat seberat 11,250 gram sekaligus dan tunai. Majelis Hakim PN Padang Sidempuan juga menyatakan penguasaan Tergugat III, Tergugat IV, Tergugat V dan Tergugat VI atas rumah dan tanah perkara adalah tanpa hak dan menghukum Tergugat III, Tergugat IV, Tergugat V dan Tergugat VI atau orang lain yang mendapat hak dari mereka atau orang lain yang mendapat hak dari orang lain untuk menyerahkan rumah dan tanah perkara dalam keadaan baik dan kosong kepada Penggugat untuk dijual lelang oleh PN Padang Sidempuan melalui Kantor Lelang Negara.

Atas Putusan PN Padang Sidempuan tersebut, para Tergugat kemudian mengajukan Banding melalui Pengadilan Tinggi (PT) Medan dengan Nomor 385/Pdt.G/1997/PT.Mdn. Dalam putusannya, PT Medan membatalkan Putusan PN Padang Sidempuan dan mengadili sendiri. Isi dari putusan PT itu sendiri sama dengan putusan PN Padang Sidempuan, hanya saja dalam putusan PT dinyatakan bahwa putusan tersebut merupakan putusan verstek.


Atas putusan PT Medan, para Tergugat kemudian mengajukan Kasasi. Atas permohonan Kasasi tersebut Mahkamah Agung dalam Amar Putusannya yang terdaftar dengan Nomor 4080 K/Pdt/1998, menolak Permohonan Kasasi para Pemohon/Tergugat asal (Tergugat III, Tergugat IV, Tergugat V dan Tergugat VI) dengan pertimbangan bahwa terhadap putusan verstek tidak dapat diajukan kasasi. Namun apabila ada pihak yang keberatan dengan putusan verstek tersebut maka pihak yang keberatan tersebut dapat mengajukan verzet.

Sebelum Putusan dari MA turun (13 Juni 2002), Hj. Badariah Mawar Harahap selaku Pengugat Asal meninggal dunia, sehingga kemudian perkara ini dilanjutkan oleh ahli warisnya, yaitu H. Muchtar Siregar. Berdasarkan Putusan MA tersebut, ahli waris Penggugat Asal kemudian mengajukan permohonan eksekusi pada tanggal 14 Oktober 2002 kepada Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan agar segera melakukan eksekusi atas putusan tersebut. Sebelumnya, pada tanggal 9 Juli 2002 Muchtar Siregar juga telah mengajukan permohonan kepada Kepala PT Medan yang intinya adalah sudah lewatnya tenggang waktu pengajuan Verzet sehingga memohon kepada Ketua Pengadilan Tinggi Sumatera Utara untuk menyatakan bahwa Putusan PT Medan telah berkekuatan hukum tetap dan agar putusan dapat dilaksanakan oleh Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan, memohon agar Tergugat/Terbanding/Pemohon Kasasi dipanggil agar dapat diperiksa surat kuasa Tergugat I dan Tergugat II guna memastikan keberadaanya.

Kemudian pada tanggal 14 Januari 2003, Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan memberikan laporan kepada Ketua PT Medan sehubungan dengan permohonan Muchtar Siregar terhadap pelaksanaan putusan tersebut yang berisi jawaban atas permohonan Muchtar Siregar. Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan mengatakan bahwa para Tergugat telah diberi peringatan (aanmaning). Namun karena Penggugat belum menyetorkan biaya maka eksekusi tidak bisa dilakukan karena tidak ada biaya eksekusi. Kemudian pada tanggal 12 Februari 2003 Muchtar Siregar melalui kuasa hukumnya Melur Lubis SH, kemudian mengajukan permohonan kepada Ketua PT Medan mengenai eksekusi atas putusan MA tersebut, sekaligus mengkoreksi laporan Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan karena pada tanggal 14 Januari 2003 Muchtar Siregar telah mendatangi Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan untuk menyetor biaya eksekusi tersebut. Namun Muchtar Siregar tidak berhasil menemui Ketua PN karena Ketua PN menolak untuk bertemu dan menugaskan Panitera Kepala untuk bertemu dengan Muchtar Siregar.

Pada tanggal 18 Februari 2003 Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan memberikan informasi kepada Muchtar Siregar bahwa Tergugat II masih hidup terbukti dengan surat kuasa yang diberikan Tergugat II kepada Supratman Sidahuruk, SH. Untuk kebenarannya, Pengadilan minta kuasa hukumnya untuk menghadirkan Tergugat II dan Muchtar Siregar diminta hadir pada tanggal 24 Februari 2003 untuk menyaksikannya. Berdasarkan surat tertanggal 25 Februari 2003, Muchtar Siregar meminta segera dilaksanakan eksekusi terhadap Tergugat III dan Tergugat IV yang telah menempati tanah jaminan tersebut. Sedangkan kepada Tergugat II pelaksanaan eksekusinya masih menunggu penyidikan lebih lanjut atas pengaduan dari Muchtar Siregar yang menganggap Tergugat II melakukan penipuan dengan cara menghilangkan diri dari tuntutan perdata yang mengiringinya, Hal tersebut diikuti pula somasi yang diajukan oleh Kuasa Hukum Muchtar Siregar, terhadap Tergugat II tanggal 14 Maret 2003.

Pada tanggal 21 Maret 2003 Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan mengajukan jawaban tertulis atas surat Kuasa Hukum Muchtar Siregar tertanggal 14 Maret 2003 yang mempertanyakan kembali perihal pelaksanaan eksekusi kepada Tergugat III dan Tergugat IV. Adapun isi dari jawabannya tersebut adalah KPN Padang Sidempuan membatalkan putusan PN, PT dan MA mengenai eksekusi atas tanah jaminan dimaksud. Pertimbangan pembatalan Putusan tersebut antara lain karena Tergugat II telah membayar seluruh hutang-hutangnya secara sukarela kepada Penggugat, pembayaran tersebut dititipkan di Kepaniteraan Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan. Dengan demikian Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan menilai eksekusi pengosongan tidak perlu dilaksanakan.



ANALISA

Analisa ini didasarkan pada Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan, Putusan Pengadilan Tinggi Medan dan Putusan Mahkamah Agung. Kami akan menganalisa kasus di atas dilihat dari diktum Putusan Pengadilan dan dari segi eksekusi dalam hukum perdata yang terdiri atas pelaksanaan eksekusi dan penundaan eksekusi atas alasan perdamaian.


Mengenai Diktum Putusan Pengadilan

Hal menarik yang menjadi perhatian kami adalah bahwa dalam putusan Pengadilan Negeri dan putusan Pengadilan Tinggi, Majelis Hakim telah memberikan hukuman yang melebihi semestinya. Di dalam diktumnya Majelis Hakim menyatakan:
1. Menyatakan Tergugat I dan Tergugat II berhutang uang dan mas kepada almarhum Imbalo Harahap.
2. Menyatakan bahwa Penggugat selaku ahli waris dari almarhum berhak menggugat para Tergugat.
3. Menghukum Tergugat I dan Tergugat II membayar hutang uang sebanyak Rp. ½ x 6.708.357 =Rp.3.354.178,5 kepada penggugat.
4. Menghukum Tergugat I dan Tergugat II membayar hutang emas 24 karat seberat 11,250 gram sekaligus dan tunai.
5. Menyatakan penguasaan Tergugat III, Tergugat IV, Tergugat V dan Tergugat VI atas rumah dan tanah perkara adalah tanpa hak.
6. Menghukum Tergugat III, Tergugat IV, Tergugat V dan Tergugat VI atau orang lain yang mendapat hak dari mereka atau orang lain yang mendapat hak dari orang lain untuk menyerahkan rumah dan tanah perkara dalam keadaan baik dan kosong kepada Penggugat guna untuk di jual lelang PN. Padang Sidempuan melaui kantor lelang Negara.

Dari diktum di atas, terlihat bahwa Majelis Hakim telah berlebihan memberikan hukuman kepada para Tergugat. Rumah dan tanah perkara dijadikan jaminan dengan maksud untuk melunasi hutang Tergugat I dan Tergugat II apabila Tergugat I dan Tergugat II tidak dapat memenuhi kewajibannya. Seharusnya diktum keenam baru dapat dilakukan apabila diktum ketiga dan keempat tidak dijalankan oleh Tergugat I dan Tergugat II. Seharusnya dalam diktum keenam ditambahkan syarat bahwa hukuman tersebut akan dilakukan bila Tergugat I dan Tergugat II tidak dapat memenuhi kewajibannya. Hal ini kemudian berpengaruh kepada pelaksanaan eksekusi.

Eksekusi Dalam Hukum Perdata

Eksekusi adalah tindakan hukum yang dilakukan oleh pengadilan kepada pihak yang kalah dalam suatu perkara sehingga eksekusi biasa disebut juga sebagai pelaksanaan putusan. Adapun aturan dan tata cara lanjutan dari pelaksanaan eksekusi ini diatur di dalam HIR atau RBG.

1. Pelaksanaan Eksekusi

Pada prinsipnya, eksekusi hanya dapat dilaksanakan apabila putusan telah memperoleh kekuatan hukum tetap (in kracht van gewijsde). Dalam kasus, putusan telah mempunyai kekuatan hukum tetap semenjak 14 hari setelah Putusan Mahkamah Agung dikeluarkan dan diberitahukan kepada masing-masing pihak yaitu pada tanggal 13 Juni 2002. Selain itu Eksekusi juga hanya dapat dijalankan terhadap Putusan yang bersifat kondemnator. Putusan dalam kasus ini merupakan putusan yang mengandung tindakan “penghukuman” terhadap diri tergugat. Berbeda dengan putusan ini, putusan yang bersifat deklaratoir mengandung “pernyataan” hukum saja tanpa disertai dengan “penghukuman”. Putusan yang bersifat deklaratoir ini tidak memiliki kekuatan eksekutorial.

Pada kasus, baik putusan Pengadilan Negeri maupun putusan Pengadilan Tinggi, secara tegas dalam amar putusan menyatakan “Menghukum Tergugat III, 4, 5 dan 6 atau orang lain yang mendapat hak dari mereka atau orang lain yang mendapat hak dari orang lain untuk menyerahkan rumah dan tanah perkara dalam keadaan baik dan kosong kepada Penggugat...”. Dengan demikian putusan dalam kasus ini merupakan putusan yang bersifat kondemnator.

Salah satu persyaratan dilakukannya eksekusi adalah ketika pihak tereksekusi tidak bersedia menjalankan putusan pengadilan secara sukarela. Pihak yang kalah dianggap tidak mau menjalankan putusan secara sukarela apabila tanggal “peringatan” (aanmaning) dilampaui. Dengan dilampauinya tenggat waktu pada aanmaning ini menandakan bahwa pihak pengadilan dapat mengupayakan eksekusi. Batas waktu maksimum peringatan yang diberikan adalah 8 hari (Pasal 196 HIR atau Pasal 207 RBG). Namun demikian, peringatan baru dapat dikeluarkan oleh Ketua Pengadilan Negeri apabila penggugat ataupun kuasanya mengajukan permohonan baik secara lisan ataupun tertulis kepada Ketua Pengadilan. Pemberian peringatan ini dilakukan dalam suatu pemeriksaan sidang insidental. Semua peristiwa yang terjadi dalam persidangan dituangkan dalam berita acara. Apabila untuk pemberian peringatan, pihak tereksekusi tidak hadir meskipun telah dipanggil secara patut maka secara ex officio Ketua Pengadilan Negeri dapat langsung mengeluarkan surat perintah eksekusi. Selanjutnya eksekusi akan dilaksanakan oleh juru sita atau panitera sebagai pejabat pelaksana eksekusi.

Dalam kasus, pada tanggal 14 oktober 2002 ahli waris penggugat telah mengajukan permohonan eksekusi kepada Ketua Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan. Berdasarkan surat jawaban Ketua Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan tanggal 7 April 2003 yang ditujukan kepada Ketua Pengadilan Tinggi Sumatera Utara, dijelaskan bahwa pada tanggal 12 November 2002 Penggugat dan para Tergugat telah dipanggil untuk diberikan surat peringatan (Aanmaning) akan tetapi saat itu yang hadir hanya Tergugat III, Tergugat IV dan Tergugat V. Sedangkan Tergugat I telah meninggal dan Tergugat II tidak diketahui keberadaannya. Dengan demikian batas waktu yang diberikan kepada Tergugat III, Tergugat IV dan Tergugat V untuk mengosongkan tanah tersebut adalah maksimum 8 hari setelah dibacakannya aanmaning. Seharusnya setidaknya pada tanggal 20 November 2002, juru sita Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan sudah dapat melaksanakan eksekusi namun hal ini tidak dilakukan. Pada saat itu eksekusi tidak langsung dilakukan karena para penggugat belum membayar biaya eksekusi. Atas pernyataan tersebut kemudian penggugat membayar biaya eksekusi pada tanggal 14 januari 2003.

Kemudian pada tanggal 2 Desember 2002, Ketua Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan juga menerima surat dari Supratman Sidauruk, SH, sebagai kuasa hukum Tergugat II. Berdasarkan surat tersebut, Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan memanggil Penggugat dan Tergugat II guna memberitahukan masalah penyelesaian eksekusi, pemberian aanmaning direncanakan untuk tanggal 24 Februari 2003. Pada pertemuan tanggal 24 Februari 2003 tersebut Tergugat II telah menyatakan akan melaksanakan putusan secara sukarela. Adapun tanggal pembayaran utang yang ditetapkan saat itu adalah tanggal 26 Februari 2003. Pernyataan Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan ini sangat aneh, mengingat suatu perdamaian seharusnya didasarkan kesepakatan dari kedua belah pihak. Dalam surat jawabannya, Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan hanya menegaskan persetujuan satu pihak saja yaitu Tergugat II sedangkan pendapat Penggugat sendiri mengenai perdamaian tidak dijelaskan.


Pada tanggal 26 Februari 2003, menurut Ketua Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan, yang hadir hanya Tergugat II sedangkan Penggugat tidak hadir. Dengan tidak hadirnya Penggugat maka pembayaran utang tersebut dititipkan kepada Kepaniteraan Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan. Namun meskipun telah dilakukan pembayaran oleh Tergugat, Penggugat pada tanggal 25 Februari 2003 mengajukan permohonan agar eksekusi dilaksanakan terhadap Tergugat III, Tergugat IV, Tergugat V dan Tergugat VI. Keterangan dari Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan untuk membatalkan eksekusi karena telah ada kesepakatan Tergugat II untuk membayar adalah tidak tepat.

Dalam amar putusannya Majelis Hakim telah menjatuhkan hukuman yang berbeda antara Tergugat I dan Tergugat II dengan Tergugat III, Tergugat IV, Tergugat V dan Tergugat VI. Dijalankannya suatu hukuman oleh salah satu pihak tidak menghapus kewajiban pihak lain untuk menjalankan hukumannya. Sehingga meskipun Tergugat II telah bersedia membayar hutangnya, hal tersebut tidak dapat menghapus kewajiban Tergugat III, Tergugat IV, Tergugat V dan Tergugat VI untuk menjalankan putusan.

Apabila Tergugat II pada tanggal 26 Februari 2003 memang telah menyatakan akan menyelesaikan secara sukarela maka hal pertama yang seharusnya dilakukan oleh Ketua Pengadilan Padang Sidempuan adalah membuat Akta Perdamaian atau setidaknya berita acara yang intinya menyatakan telah terjadi perdamaian diantara para pihak. Sesuai dengan pasal 1851 KUH Perdata, perdamaian seharusnya didasarkan pada kesepakatan kedua belah pihak dan dibuat secara tertulis. Namun sayangnya dalam berkas surat yang kami terima tidak ditemukan fakta dibuatnya akta perdamaian ataupun berita acara tentang terjadinya perdamaian.

3. Penundaan Eksekusi Atas Alasan Perdamaian

Berdasarkan surat tertanggal 21 Maret 2003, Ketua Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan membatalkan pelaksanaan eksekusi putusan Pengadilan Negeri, Pengadilan Tinggi dan Mahkamah Agung dengan alasan bahwa hutang telah dibayar oleh Tergugat II. Namun menurut kami terdapat kejanggalan dalam proses pembayaran utang sebagai bentuk dari perdamaian itu sendiri dilihat dari bagaimana seharusnya penundaan ataupun pembatalan eksekusi dengan alasan telah terjadi perdamaian itu terjadi.


Menurut Yahya Harahap, perdamaian yang dapat menunda eksekusi adalah bentuk perdamaian sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 1851 KUH Perdata:
“Perdamaian adalah suatu perjanjian dengan mana kedua belah pihak, dengan menyerahkan, menjanjikan atau menahan suatu barang, mengakhiri suatu perkara yang sedang bergantung ataupun mencegah timbulnya suatu perkara. Perjanjian ini tidaklah sah melainkan jika dibuat secara tertulis”
Apabila terjadi perdamaian antara kedua belah pihak, maka pengadilan harus menunda atau menghentikan eksekusi. Sedangkan apabila perdamaian diingkari pihak tereksekusi, maka putusan kembali memiliki kekuatan hukum tetap dan eksekusi dapat dijalankan tanpa melalui gugatan baru.
Sebaliknya, apabila ada permintaan eksekusi kembali atau alasan pihak tereksekusi lalai atau ingkar menaati dan memenuhi perdamaian maka Ketua Pengadilan Negeri harus mengadakan pemeriksaan insidental. Persidangan insidental ini bertujuan untuk memberikan kesempatan kepada Ketua Pengadilan Negeri untuk menilai benar atau tidaknya kelalaian atau keingkaran pihak tereksekusi. Apabila Ketua Pengadilan Negeri menilai isi perdamaian telah dipenuhi dengan baik oleh pihak tereksekusi maka Ketua Pengadilan Negeri tetap mempertahankan penetapan penundaan. Sedangkan bila pihak pemohon eksekusi keberatan atas penilaian tersebut maka ia dapat mengajukan gugatan baru dengan dalil pihak tereksekusi ingkar memenuhi perdamaian, meminta perdamaian dibatalkan dan sekaligus meminta agar eksekusi dapat dijalankan kembali sesuai dengan amar putusan semula.




Untuk kasus ini, menurut kami proses terjadinya perdamaian pada tanggal 24 Februari 2003 dan pelaksanaannya pada tanggal 26 Februari 2003 memiliki kejanggalan. Jika perdamaian memang telah terjadi maka adanya permohonan eksekusi kepada Tergugat II menandakan bahwa ada kemungkinan Tergugat II tidak memenuhi atau lalai memenuhi kesepakatan sesuai dengan perjanjian perdamaian sebelumnya. Melihat kemungkinan tersebut seharusnya Ketua PN Padang Sidempuan mengadakan pemeriksaan insidental untuk memeriksa apakah benar Tergugat II telah lalai melaksanakan kewajibannya. Terhadap hasil pemeriksaan Ketua PN tersebut sebenarnya Penggugat dapat mengajukan gugatan baru dengan dalil pihak tereksekusi ingkar memenuhi perdamaian. Namun di sisi lain mengingat setelah tanggal 24 Februari 2003 Penggugat kerap kali mengajukan permohonan eksekusi setidak-tidaknya dapat dikatakan perdamaian belum terjadi diantara pihak. Dengan demikian seharusnya Ketua Pengadilan Negeri Padang Sidempuan tidak menunda atau bahkan membatalkan eksekusi karena alasan Perdamaian sebagaimana yang dimaksud dalam pasal 1851 KUH Perdata tidak terpenuhi.


Translation - English
THE ENFORCEMENT OF
SENTENCES IN CASES OF
AGREEMENTS OF INDEBTEDNESS
Desita Sari, S.H
28 October 2003, 10:03:54 Western Indonesian Time – pemantauperadilan.com

CASE OUTLINE

The case began when Parlindungan Harahap (hereinafter referred to as the first defendant) and Nuria br. Simatupang (hereinafter referred to as the second defendant) borrowed money and gold from the late Imbalo Harahap on 8 July 1978. The loan was given with the two defendants’ houses and surrounding land being put up as collateral. In the agreement of indebtedness it was stated that the first and second defendant would repay the debt on 3 January 1979. The due date for repaying the loan was later extended to 1 May 1979.


Nevertheless the due date passed without the first and second defendant paying off the debt. In fact it had still not been paid by the time Imbalo Harahap passed away and in the meantime Pendi Harahap, Deliana br Lubis, Ishak Pane and Sayur Siregar (hereinafter referred to as the third, fourth and fifth and sixth defendants respectively) had unlawfully occupied the land and the houses upon it which had been put up as collateral. Hj. Badariah Mawar Harahap (the late Imbalo Harahap’s wife) then lodged a claim in respect to the debt for breach of contract with the Padang Sidempuan District Court under claim number 16/Pdt.G/1997PN.Psp.

In their decision, the panel of judges of the Padang Sidempuan District Court found in partial favour of the plaintiff and ordered the first and second defendant to each repay Rp3,354,175.5, being half of the loan of Rp6,708,357. In their decision, the panel of judges also ordered the first and second defendant to repay the debt of 11.250 grams of 24 carat gold concurrently and in cash. The panel of judges of the Padang Sidempuan District Court also declared the occupation by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendant of the houses and land in the case to be unlawful and ordered the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendant, or any others authorized by them or anyone authorized by anyone else, to surrender the houses and land surrounding them in a good and vacant condition to the plaintiff to be auctioned by the Padang Sidempuan District Court by means of the State Auction Office.



The defendants thereupon appealed the decision of the Padang Sidempuan District Court to the Medan High Court under claim number 385/Pdt.G/1997/PT.Mdn. The Medan High Court decided to overturn the decision of the Padang Sidempuan District Court and rule on the case itself. The decision of the High Court mirrored the decision of the Padang Sidempuan District Court, except that in the decision of the High Court it was stated that the decision was a default judgment.

The defendants consequently appealed the decision of the Medan High Court to the Supreme Court by means of a cassation claim. In its written decision, registered under number 4080 K/Pdt/1998, the Supreme Court rejected the cassation request of the petitioners, who were also the original defendants (the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants), on the grounds that a request for cassation cannot be lodged against a default judgment. Nevertheless, if any party was not satisfied with the default judgment they could lodge a formal objection.

Before the decision of the Supreme Court was issued (on 13 June 2002), Hj. Badariah Mawar Harahap as the original plaintiff passed away, so the case was continued by her heir, H. Muchtar Siregar. Based upon the Supreme Court’s decision, on 14 October 2002 the original plaintiff’s heir requested the Head of the Padang Sidempuan District Court to immediately enforce the decision. Prior to this, on 9 July 2002 Muchtar Siregar had also submitted a request to the Chairman of the Medan High Court which in essence was that since the allowable time for lodging a formal objection had passed, the chairman of the North Sumatra High Court should decree that the decision of the Medan High Court had now attained permanent legal force and that the decision could be enforced by the Padang Sidempuan District Court, and requested that the defendants, who were also the appellants and the persons who had requested cassation, should be summoned so that the letters of power of attorney of the first and second defendant could be examined in order to find out where they were.

On 14 January 2003, the Chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court then made a report to the Chairman of the Medan High Court in relation to Muchtar Siregar’s request for the decision to be enforced. The chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court said that the defendants had been given a formal written warning. Nevertheless because the plaintiff had not made payment, the decision could not be enforced as no enforcement fee had been received. On 12 February 2003 Muchtar Siregar then filed a request to the chairman of the Medan High Court through his legal representative Melur Lubis SH concerning the enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision and at the same time amending the report of the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court as Muchtar Siregar had come to the Padang Sidempuan District Court to meet the chairman and pay the enforcement fee. However he had failed to meet him because the District Court chairman had refused to meet him and assigned the chief clerk to meet with him.



On 18 February 2003 the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court informed Muchtar Siregar that the second defendant was still alive, as evidenced by the letter of power of attorney that the second defendant had given to Supratman Sidahuruk, SH. To check the veracity of this, the court requested Sidahuruk, the legal representative, to present the second defendant before the court and requested Muchtar Siregar to also be present on 24 February 2003 as a witness thereof. Based on a letter of 25 February 2003, Muchtar Siregar requested that the ruling with regard to the third and fourth defendants who were occupying the land put up as collateral be immediately enforced, while the enforcement of the ruling with regard to the second defendant was still awaiting further investigation into Muchtar Siregar’s claim that she had committed fraud by deliberately evading the charges facing her. Muchtar Siregar’s legal representative had also given a written warning to the second defendant on 14 March 2003.

On 21 March 2003 the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court replied in writing to Muchtar Siregar’s legal representative’s letter which had asked again why the ruling against the third and fourth defendant had not been enforced. The letter stated that the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court had overturned the ruling of the District Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court concerning the enforcement of the ruling regarding the land which had been put up as collateral. The grounds given for overturning the ruling included the fact that the second defendant had voluntarily paid off all her debts to the plaintiff, by entrusting the money to the clerk’s section of the Padang Sidempuan District Court. Thus the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court had viewed the enforcement of the vacating of the land as no longer necessary.

ANALYSIS

This analysis is based upon the ruling of the Padang Sidempuan District Court, the ruling of the Medan High Court and the ruling of the Supreme Court. We will analyze the above case from the angle of the wording of the court rulings and the enforcement of rulings in civil cases, consisting of the carrying out of enforcement and the postponement of enforcement on the grounds of a settlement having been reached.

The Wording of the Court Rulings

The interesting aspect of this case is that in their rulings the judges of the District Court and the High Court handed down excessive penalties. The actual wording of the ruling of the panels of judges stated:
1. The first and second defendant owe money and gold to the late Imbalo Harahap.
2. The plaintiff as the deceased’s heir has the right to sue the defendants.
3. The first and second defendant are hereby ordered to pay back the cash debt of half of Rp 6,708,357 to the plaintiff, namely the sum of Rp3,354,178.5 (each).
4. The first and second defendant are hereby ordered to repay the gold debt of 11.250 grams of 24 carat gold concurrently and in cash.
5. The occupation by the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendant of the house and surrounding land is illegal.
6. The third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendant or anyone else authorized by them or anyone else authorized by anyone else is hereby ordered to surrender the houses and land surrounding them in a good and vacant condition to the plaintiff in order to be auctioned by the Padang Sidempuan District Court by means of the State Auction Office.





The above wording shows that the panels of judges have excessively punished the defendants. The houses and land surrounding them were put up as collateral with the purpose of repaying the first and second defendant’s debt in the event that the first and second defendant were not able to meet their obligations. The sixth point should only have been enforceable if the requirements of the third and fourth points were not met by the first and second defendants. A condition should have been added to the sixth point that its penalty could only be applied if the first and second defendants were unable to fulfil their obligations. This would have then impacted upon the enforcement of the ruling.

Enforcement in Civil Law

Enforcement is a legal action performed by the court on the party that loses a case and the ruling is “executed”. The rules and regulations governing enforcement are set out in the Indonesian civil procedural law contained in the HIR or RBG, which originated in the Dutch colonial era.

1. Implementation of Enforcement

In principle, enforcement can only be implemented if a decision has obtained permanent legal force. In this particular case, the decision had obtained permanent legal force fourteen days after the Supreme Court ruling was issued and notified to both parties, which was on 13 June 2002. Besides that, enforcement can only be carried out on a ruling which is condemnatory in nature. The ruling in this case is one which contains “punishment” of the defendants. As distinct from this case a declaratory judgment only contains a legal “declaration”. Such declaratory judgments are not enforceable.






In this particular case, both the District Court’s ruling and the High Court’s ruling specifically contain the wording “hereby order (and therefore punish) the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants or others authorized by them or anybody authorized by others to surrender the houses and land in dispute in a good and vacant condition to the plaintiff…”. Thus this ruling is condemnatory in nature.



One of the requirements of enforcement of a ruling is that the party facing the consequences of enforcement is unwilling to voluntarily abide by the ruling of the court. The losing party is considered to be unwilling to voluntarily abide by the ruling if the date of the formal written warning passes. Exceeding the period stipulated in the formal written warning signifies that the court can effect enforcement. The maximum warning period given is eight days (clause 196 of the HIR or clause 207 of the RBG). Nevertheless, a formal written warning can only be issued by the chairman of the District Court if the plaintiff or his representative makes a verbal or written request to that effect to the chairman of the court. This warning is given in a special session of the court, which nonetheless is investigative in nature and all events in the court session are recorded in minutes of the proceedings. If the party facing enforcement is not present even though they have been properly summoned then the chairman of the District Court can, by virtue of his office, immediately issue an enforcement order. Thereafter, the enforcement will be carried out by the bailiff or the clerk as the officials assigned to carry out enforcement.

In this case, the plaintiff’s heir requested the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court on 14 October 2002 to enforce the ruling. Based on the Padang Sidempuan District Court chairman’s letter of reply dated 7 April 2003 to the chairman of the North Sumatra High Court, the explanation was that on 12 November 2002 the plaintiff and the defendants had been summoned in order that the formal warning letter be handed over but only the third, fourth and fifth defendants were present at the time while the first defendant had died and the whereabouts of the second defendant was unknown. Thus the maximum time given to the third, fourth and fifth defendant to vacate the land was eight days after the formal warning letter was read out. The bailiff of the Padang Sidempuan District Court should at least have been able to effect enforcement on 20 November 2002, but this was not done. At the time the enforcement was not carried out because the plaintiffs had not yet paid the enforcement fee. Based on this explanation the plaintiff then paid the enforcement fee on 14 January 2003.





Then (previous to this) on 2 December 2002, the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court also received a letter from Supratman Sidauruk, SH, as the second defendant’s legal representative. Based on the letter, the Padang Sidempuan District Court summoned the plaintiff and the second defendant to inform them that in order to settle the matter of enforcement, the court planned to give a formal written warning on 24 February 2003. At the meeting on 24 February 2003 the second defendant stated that she would abide by the ruling voluntarily. The date for the payment of the debt was duly set at 26 February 2003. This statement by the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court is bizarre, considering that a settlement is supposed to be based on an agreement between both parties. In his letter of reply, the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court only stressed the agreement of one of the parties, i.e. the second defendant, whereas the plaintiff’s attitude towards the settlement was not stated.

According to the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court only the second defendant was present on 26 February 2003, whereas the plaintiff was not. In the absence of the plaintiff the money used to repay the debt was entrusted to the clerk’s section of the Padang Sidempuan District Court. Nonetheless, although the defendant had repaid the debt, on 25 February 2003 the plaintiff requested that enforcement be carried out on the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants. The explanation used by the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court to cancel the enforcement because the second defendant had agreed to pay off the debt is inappropriate.


In their decisions the two panels of judges imposed differing penalties on the first and second defendants as compared to the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendants. The fact that one party has been punished does not cancel out the responsibility of the other party to undergo their punishment. So even though the second defendant was willing to pay off her debts, that does not eliminate the third, fourth, fifth and sixth defendant’s responsibilities to abide by the ruling.


If indeed the second defendant stated on 26 February 2003 that she would settle the matter voluntarily the first thing the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court should have done was to draw up a deed of settlement or at least a report stating that a settlement had been reached between the parties. In accordance with clause 1851 of the Civil Code, a settlement should be based upon an agreement between two parties and made in writing. Regrettably however, there was no evidence in the case file we received of a deed of settlement having been made or a written report of a settlement having occurred.


3. Deferral of Enforcement using Settlement as a Justification

Based on his letter of 21 March 2003, the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court cancelled the enforcement of the decisions of the District Court, the High Court and the Supreme Court with the justification that the debt had been repaid by the second defendant. However according to us the process of repaying the debt as part of reaching the settlement is flawed. The defect lies in how postponement or cancellation of enforcement on the grounds that a settlement has been reached should actually occur.

According to Yahya Harahap, a settlement which can prevent enforcement is one such as is regulated in clause 1851 of the Civil Code:
“A settlement is a contract in which two parties, by surrendering or retaining a certain thing, either end or prevent a dispute which is dependent upon that thing’s surrender or retention. This contract is not valid unless it is made in writing.”
If a settlement has been reached between the two parties, the court must postpone or cancel the enforcement of the ruling. However if the settlement is breached by the party facing implementation of the enforcement, the ruling reverts to having permanent legal force and can be enforced without the need for a new lawsuit.


On the other hand, if there is another request for enforcement or if the party facing enforcement neglects or is in breach of the terms of the settlement the chairman of the District Court must hold a special session to investigate the matter. This special session is held with the purpose of giving the chairman of the District Court an opportunity to assess whether or not the party facing enforcement of the ruling has been negligent or in breach of the terms of the settlement. If the chairman of the District Court deems that the terms of the settlement have been satisfactorily met by the party facing enforcement then the chairman of the District Court will continue to maintain the stay of execution. But if the party requesting enforcement objects to the assessment it can file a new lawsuit on the grounds that the party facing enforcement breached the terms of the settlement, request that the settlement be revoked and concurrently request that enforcement can be once again carried out in accordance with the wording of the original ruling.

In this case, our opinion is that the process by which a settlement was reached on 24 February 2003 was defective. If indeed a settlement was reached then the request for enforcement against the second defendant would indicate the possibility that the second defendant did not meet or was negligent in meeting the conditions of the agreement in the previous settlement contract. In view of that possibility, the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court should have held a special court session to determine whether or not the second defendant was in breach of her responsibilities. Based on the result of such an investigation by the chairman of the District Court, the plaintiff could actually file a new claim on the grounds that the party facing enforcement was in breach of the terms of the settlement. On the other hand considering that after 24 February 2003 the plaintiff requested on a number of occasions that enforcement of the ruling be carried out, at the very least it could be said that a settlement had not yet been reached between the parties. Therefore the chairman of the Padang Sidempuan District Court should not have postponed or, worse still, cancelled the enforcement because the conditions for a settlement as defined by clause 1851 of the Civil Code were not fulfilled.
English to Indonesian: Translation contest entry
Source text - English
The problem of being awkward with introductions is not, for many, an “unusual situation.” You may find that you are often uncertain about whether to introduce someone using their first name, last name, or both; about whether to use a qualifier (“this is my friend, ______”); even about whether or not it is in fact your responsibility to introduce two people in a given situation. But all of this is small potatoes compared with the seemingly inevitable mingling nightmare of having to introduce someone whose name you have forgotten.







It’s one thing to forget someone’s name if you’ve met them only once or twice, or if you haven’t seen them in a while. But all too often it’s someone whose name you really should know, and who is going to be insulted to find out you don’t. In other words, a faux pas in the making.





This is absolute agony when it happens, and I’ve watched hundreds of minglers try to deal with different ways, ranging from exuberant apology (“Oh GOD, I’m so sorry, JEEZ, wow, I can’t believe I’ve forgotten your name!”) to throwing up their hands and walking away. But there are better ways to deal with this kind of mental slip. Next time you draw a blank while making introductions, try the following ploy:




Force them to introduce themselves. This is the smoothest and most effective way to handle your memory lapse. When it’s done well, no one will ever suspect you. If you have forgotten one person’s name in the group, turn to that person first and smile. Then turn invitingly to a person whose name you do remember and say, “This is Linden Bond,” turning back casually toward the forgotten person. The person whose name you haven’t mentioned yet will automatically (it’s a reflex) say “Nice to meet you, Linden, I’m Sylvia Cooper,” and usually offer a hand to shake.
Translation - Indonesian
Bagi banyak orang, masalah kecanggungan dalam memperkenalkan orang lain bukanlah hal yang luar biasa. Anda mungkin akan mengalami keraguan tentang apakah lebih tepat Anda memperkenalkan seseorang dengan menggunakan nama kecilnya, nama keluarganya, atau dua-duanya; tentang tepatnya menggunakan kata-kata pendahuluan seperti “ini teman saya, ________ “; bahkan tentang apakah sebenarnya Anda bertanggungjawab untuk memperkenalkan dua orang satu sama lain dalam situasi tertentu. Tetapi semuanya ini merupakan soal kecil bila dibandingkan dengan pengalaman mengerikan yang seakan-akan tidak terhindarkan di mana Anda harus memperkenalkan seseorang yang namanya sudah Anda lupa pada saat Anda sedang bergaul dengan banyak orang.

Apabila kita melupakan nama seseorang yang kita baru bertemu satu atau dua kali, atau yang kita sudah agak lama tidak bertemu, itu bukan masalah yang terlampau besar. Namun terlalu sering orang yang namanya dilupakan itu merupakan orang yang namanya seharusnya kita benar-benar tahu, dan yang akan tersinggung sekali apabila ia mendapatkan bahwa kita tidak mengingat namanya. Dalam kata lain, kita akan segera “salah bergaul”.

Hal ini benar-benar menyiksa apabila terjadi, dan saya telah mengamati ratusan orang yang sedang bergaul satu sama lain, yang masing-masing mencoba menanggulanginya dengan cara yang berbeda-beda, dari mereka yang meminta-minta maaf (“Ya ampuuuun, kok saya bisa lupa nama Anda. Saya mohon maaf sekali.”) sampai mereka yang mengangkat tangan tinggi-tinggi dan langsung berjalan pergi. Kali berikut Anda lupa nama seseorang saat memperkenalkannya, cobalah kiat berikut ini:

Paksakan mereka untuk memperkenalkan dirinya sendiri. Ini merupakan cara yang paling halus dan efektif untuk mengatasi kealpaan ingatan Anda. Apabila kiat ini dijalankan dengan baik, tidak akan ada orang yang mencurigai bahwa Anda telah melupakan nama seseorang. Apabila Anda telah melupakan nama seseorang dalam sekelompok orang, berpalinglah menghadap orang tersebut terlebih dahulu dan tersenyum padanya. Kemudian berpalinglah ke arah seseorang yang namanya masih Anda ingat dengan ekspresi muka seakan-akan Anda ingin mengajak dia berbicara dan berkata, “Ini Linden Bond,” sambil berpaling kembali secara santai kepada orang yang namanya Anda lupa. Orang yang namanya belum Anda sebutkan akan dengan sendirinya (secara rifleks) mengatakan “Senang bertemu dengan Anda, Linden, saya Sylvia Cooper,”
Indonesian to English: Franchising Regulations
Source text - Indonesian
PERATURAN PEMERINTAH NOMOR 16 TAHUN 1997,
TENTANG WARALABA

PRESIDEN REPUBLIK INDONESIA,


Menimbang :
bahwa untuk menciptakan tertib usaha dengan cara Waralaba serta perlindungan terhadap konsumen, dipandang perlu menetapkan ketentuan tentang Waralaba dengan Peraturan Pemerintah;

Mengingat :
1. Pasal 4 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Dasar 1945;
2. Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata (Burgelijke Wetboek, Staatblads 1847 Nomor 23);
3. Undang-undang Pengaturan Perusahaan 1934 (Bedrijfs Reglementerings Ordonantie 1934, Staatblads 1938 Nomor 86);




MEMUTUSKAN :

Menetapkan :
PERATURAN PEMERINTAH TENTANG WARALABA.

BAB I
KETENTUAN UMUM

Pasal 1

Dalam Peraturan Pemerintah ini yang dimaksud dengan :

1. Waralaba adalah perikatan dimana salah satu pihak diberikan hak untuk memanfaatkan dan atau menggunakan hak atas kekayaan intelektual atau penemuan atau ciri khas usaha yang dimiliki pihak lain dengan suatu imbalan berdasarkan persyaratan yang ditetapkan pihak lain tersebut, dalam rangka penyediaan dan atau penjualan barang dan atau jasa;

2. Pemberi Waralaba adalah badan usaha atau perorangan yang memberikan hak kepada pihak lain untuk memanfaatkan dan atau menggunakan hak atas kekayaan intelektual atau penemuan atau ciri khas usaha yang dimilikinya;

3. Penerima Waralaba adalah badan usaha atau perorangan yang diberikan hak untuk memanfaatkan dan atau menggunakan hak atas kekayaan intelektual atau penemuan atau ciri khas yang dimiliki Pemberi Waralaba.

Pasal 2

(1) Waralaba diselenggarakan berdasarkan perjanjian tertulis antara Pemberi Waralaba dan Penerima Waralaba.

(2) Perjanjian Waralaba dibuat dalam bahasa Indonesia dan terhadapnya berlaku hukum Indonesia.

Pasal 3

(1) Sebelum membuat perjanjian, Pemberi Waralaba wajib menyampaikan keterangan kepada Penerima Waralaba secara tertulis dan benar sekurang-kurangnya mengenai :
a. Pemberi Waralaba, berikut keterangan mengenai kegiatan usahanya;
b. Hak atas kekayaan intelektual atau penemuan atau ciri khas usaha yang menjadi objek Waralaba;
c. Persyaratan-persyaratan yang harus dipenuhi Penerima Waralaba;
d. Bantuan atau fasilitas yang ditawarkan Pemberi Waralaba kepada Penerima Waralaba;
e. Hak dan kewajiban Pemberi dan Penerima Waralaba;
f. Pengakhiran, pembatalan, dan perpanjangan perjanjian Waralaba serta hal-hal lain yang perlu diketahui Penerima Waralaba dalam rangka pelaksanaan perjanjian Waralaba.

(2) Pemberi Waralaba wajib memberikan waktu yang cukup kepada Penerima Waralaba untuk meneliti hal-hal sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1).

Pasal 4

(1) Pemberi Waralaba dan Penerima Waralaba mengutamakan penggunaan barang dan atau bahan hasil produksi dalam negeri sebanyak-banyaknya sepanjang memenuhi standar mutu barang dan jasa yang disediakan dan atau dijual berdasarkan perjanjian Waralaba.

(2) Pemberi Waralaba memberikan pembinaan, bimbingan, dan pelatihan kepada Penerima Waralaba.

Pasal 5

Dalam hal Penerima Waralaba diberikan hak untuk menunjuk lebih lanjut Penerima Waralaba lain, Penerima Waralaba yang bersangkutan wajib mempunyai dan melaksanakan sendiri sekurang-kurangnya satu tempat usaha untuk melakukan kegiatan usaha Waralaba.

Pasal 6

(1) Usaha Waralaba dapat diselenggarakan untuk dan di seluruh wilayah Indonesia, dan pelaksanaannya dilakukan secara bertahap dengan memperhatikan perkembangan sosial dan ekonomi dan dalam rangka pengembangan usaha kecil dan menengah.


(2) Ketentuan lebih lanjut tentang pelaksanaan pentahapan sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1), ditetapkan oleh Menteri Perindustrian dan Perdagangan setelah mendengar pertimbangan Menteri dan pimpinan instansi terkait.

Pasal 7

(1) Perjanjian Waralaba beserta keterangan tertulis sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 3 ayat (1) didaftarkan di Departemen Perindustrian dan Perdagangan oleh Penerima Waralaba paling lambat 30 (tiga puluh) hari terhitung sejak berlakunya perjanjian Waralaba.

(2) Pendaftaran sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) dilaksanakan dalam rangka dan untuk kepentingan pembinaan usaha dengan cara Waralaba.

Pasal 8

Penerima Waralaba yang tidak memenuhi persyaratan sebagaimana dimaksud pada Pasal 7 ayat (1) dan tetap melaksanakan kegiatan usaha yang bersangkutan meskipun telah diberi peringatan sebanyak tiga kali berturut-turut, dikenakan sanksi pencabutan Surat Ijin Usaha Perdagangan (SIUP) atau ijin lain yang sejenis.

Pasal 9

(1) Perjanjian Waralaba yang telah berlaku sebelum ditetapkannya Peraturan Pemerintah ini, didaftarkan sebagaimana dimaksud pada pasal 7.

(2) Pendaftaran sebagaimana dimaksud dalam ayat (1) dilakukan selambat-lambatnya 6 (enam) bulan terhitung sejak tanggal berlakunya Peraturan Pemerintah ini.

Pasal 10

Ketentuan lebih lanjut yang diperlukan bagi pelaksanaan Peraturan Pemerintah ini ditetapkan oleh Menteri Perindustrian dan Perdagangan.

Pasal 11

Peraturan Pemerintah ini mulai berlaku pada tanggal diundangkan.
Agar setiap orang mengetahuinya, memerintahkan pengundangan Peraturan Pemerintah ini dengan penempatannya dalam Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia.

Ditetapkan di Jakarta
pada tanggal 18 Juni 1997

PRESIDEN REPUBLIK INDONESIA


ttd.

SOEHARTO

Diundangkan di Jakarta
pada tanggal 18 Juni 1997

MENTERI NEGARA SEKRETARIS NEGARA
REPUBLIK INDONESIA

ttd.

MOERDIONO
Translation - English
GOVERNMENT REGULATION NUMBER 16 OF 1997
CONCERNING FRANCHISING

THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA,

Upon considering:
that to create orderly trading conditions for business carried out by Franchising, and protection for consumers, it is deemed necessary to enact regulations on Franchising by means of a Government Regulation;

Bearing in mind:
1. Clause (1) of Article 4 of the 1945 Constitution;
2. The Indonesian Civil Code (formerly known as the Burgelijke Wetboek, promulgated in State Gazette number 23 of 1847);
3. The Regulation of Companies Law of 1934 (formerly known as the Bedrijfs
Reglementerings Ordonantie 1934, promulgated in State Gazette number 86 of 1938);

HEREBY DECREES :

To enact the:
GOVERNMENT REGULATION CONCERNING FRANCHISING.

SECTION 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1

In this Government Regulation the following definitions shall apply:

1. A Franchise is a binding relationship in which one party is granted the right to benefit from and/or use the rights to intellectual property, inventions or special characteristics possessed by the business of another party for a recompense based on conditions set by the other party, within the context of the provision and/or sale of goods and/or services;

2. A Franchisor is a business or individual who grants the right to another party to benefit from and/or use the rights to intellectual property, inventions or special characteristics of the business he or she possesses;

3. A Franchisee is a business or individual who is granted the right to benefit from and/or use the rights to intellectual property, inventions or special characteristics of the business possessed by the Franchisor.


Article 2

(1) A Franchise is conducted based upon a written agreement between a Franchisor and a Franchisee.

(2) A Franchise agreement shall be written in the Indonesian language and shall be subject to Indonesian law.

Article 3

(1) Before an agreement is made, the Franchisor is obliged to provide a truthful written explanation to the Franchisee covering at least the following :
a. The identity of the Franchisor, with an explanation of the business activities the Franchise entails;
b. The rights to the intellectual properties, inventions or special business characteristics of the Franchise;
c. The conditions that must be met by the Franchisee;
d. The assistance and facilities the Franchisor is offering the Franchisee;
e. The rights and responsibilities of the Franchisor and the Franchisee;
f. The termination, cancellation and extension of the Franchise agreement and other matters the Franchisee needs to know in relation to the performance of the Franchise agreement.

(2) The Franchisor is obliged to give sufficient time to the Franchisee to verify the matters referred to in clause (1).


Article 4

(1) The Franchisor and Franchisee shall give precedence to the use of goods or materials produced in Indonesia as long as they fulfill the quality and service standards of that which is provided or sold based on the Franchise agreement.


(2) The Franchisor shall provide mentoring, direction and training to the Franchisee.


Article 5

Insofar as the Franchisee is granted the right to appoint other Franchisees, the other Franchisee(s) shall be obliged to possess and operate at least one place of business to carry out the Franchise business activities.



Article 6

(1) Franchising can be carried out for and throughout the territory of
Indonesia, and its implementation shall be done in stages while observing social and economic developments and within the framework of the development of small and medium-sized businesses.

(2) Further regulations concerning the phased introduction as referred to in clause (1) shall be made by the Minister of Industry and Trade after noting the views of other Ministers and heads of related government departments.

Article 7

(1) Franchise agreements and written explanations as referred to in clause (1) of
Article 3 shall be registered with the Department of Industry and Trade by the Franchisee no later than 30 (thirty) days after the Franchise agreement comes into force.

(2) The registration referred to in clause (1) shall be made within the framework of and for the purpose of the development of business by Franchising.

Article 8

The Franchisee who does not fulfill their responsibility as referred to in clause (1) of Article 7 and continues business activities even though he or she has been warned three times consecutively, will have his or her Trading Permit (SIUP), or equivalent permit, revoked.


Article 9

(1) Franchise Agreements which came into force before the enactment of this Government Regulation shall be registered in accordance with Article 7.

(2) Registration as referred to in clause (1) shall be made no later than 6 (six) months after the date that this Government Regulation has come into force.

Article 10

Other regulations necessary for the implementation of this Government Regulation will be made by the Minister of Industry and Trade.

Article 11

This Government Regulation shall come into force on the date of its enactment.
In order that it be known to all, it is ordered that this Government Regulation be adopted by its placement in the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia.

Enacted in Jakarta
on June 18 1997

PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

signed

SOEHARTO

Enacted in Jakarta
on June 18 1997

SECRETARY OF STATE AND MINISTER OF STATE OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA

signed

MOERDIONO

Experience Years of experience: 20. Registered at ProZ.com: Mar 2007. Became a member: Jun 2007.
Credentials Indonesian to English (New Zealand Society of Translators and Interpreters, verified)
Memberships N/A
Software Adobe Acrobat, memoQ, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Word, Powerpoint
CV/Resume English (DOC)
Contests won Third ProZ.com Translation Contest: Indonesian to English
11th ProZ.com translation contest: Indonesian to English
Professional practices Ian Forbes endorses ProZ.com's Professional Guidelines (v1.0).
Bio
Untuk penjelasan singkat dalam Bahasa Indonesia, harap lihat bagian akhir.

Education
• MA (Hons) in Indonesian Language and Literature, University of Auckland 1979

Translation
• Frequent consultant at LOMS & Associates (Indonesian Translation company), c1990-1999
• Translator & proofreader for the Translation Service (New Zealand Government translation company), c 2001 – present (this has involved gaining a security clearance)
• Frequent translation for Indonesian Embassy in Wellington (July 2002 – December 2014) (I worked there :)
• Clear and accurate
• Appropriate level of language for the end user of the translation
• Excellent research skills

Current Rates
Full translations:
Translation ordered from outside New Zealand :10-12 cents US per source word
Translation ordered in New Zealand : 15-18 cents NZ per source word

Template translations:
(New Zealand only) $30 for birth certificates, police clearance letters (SKCK), marriage certificates, identity cards (KTP), degree certificates (if no transcript is included).   Approved by the NZTA (New Zealand Transport Agency) to translate Indonesian driver licences.

Interpreting
• Frequent interpreting in Jakarta 1987-1999
• Simultaneous interpreting for Australia – Indonesia Doping Workshop, Jakarta 1999
• Interpreting assignments for Indonesian Embassy in Wellington including interpreting for Komisi XI DPRRI (Indonesian House of Representatives Budget Committee) and Badan Pemeriksa Keuangan (Supreme Audit Agency)

Legal Translation
Legal translation is one of my specialities. It is especially important to "get it right" with legal translation. As part of my resources I have compiled a large glossary of Indonesian legal terms and their English translation (currently 18 pages) which I add to occasionally when I come across a new term. This has involved a lot a research into the best translation for difficult terms such as “jaminan sita”, “tergugat rekonpensi”, “putusan verstek” etc.

English to Indonesian translation
Ideally a translator should translate into his or her native language, but there are limits to this (maybe you have heard the true story of the translator translating “He’s a Vietnam vet.” into their native language as “He’s a veterinarian from Vietnam.”). I am happy to do English to Indonesian translation and indeed am used by the Translation Service in Wellington to vet potential Indonesian translators. I would be most useful in translating English to Indonesian where accuracy is essential.

Other
• Taught Bahasa Indonesia at Kelston Boys High School, Auckland 1983 – 1986
• Lived in Jakarta 1987 – 1999, taught and wrote in Bahasa Indonesia
• Taught Bahasa Indonesia at Indonesian Embassy, Wellington 2006, 2007
• Worked at the Indonesian Embassy, Wellington from July 2002 to December 2014 as a local staff member engaged in political reporting, economic research, translating (both directions), interpreting (both directions), proofreading etc.
• Tutored a number of individuals
• Speak & write fluent Bahasa Indonesia

• Meskipun bukan penutur asli saya merasa mampu untuk juga menerjemahkan dari bahasa Inggris ke dalam bahasa Indonesia, terutama dari segi ketepatan.
• Kalau Anda sampai kepada halaman profil ini karena mencari suatu istilah melalui Google, harap klik tanda "+" di samping kata "Portfolio" (barangkali Anda dapat menemukan terjemahan istilah tersebut di situ).
• Kalau Anda ingin menghubungi saya untuk menanyakan masalah penerjemahan, silahkan klik di gambar amplop atau di gambar huruf "P" di sampingnya.
This user has earned KudoZ points by helping other translators with PRO-level terms. Click point total(s) to see term translations provided.

Total pts earned: 782
PRO-level pts: 747


Top languages (PRO)
English to Indonesian403
Indonesian to English344
Top general fields (PRO)
Other333
Tech/Engineering133
Law/Patents102
Social Sciences59
Bus/Financial48
Pts in 4 more flds >
Top specific fields (PRO)
General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters96
Law: Contract(s)80
Cinema, Film, TV, Drama76
Law (general)58
Construction / Civil Engineering48
Automotive / Cars & Trucks36
Government / Politics28
Pts in 34 more flds >

See all points earned >
Keywords: translator, translation, Indonesian, interpreter, penerjemah, terjemahan, bahasa Indonesia, Inggris, New Zealand, Selandia Baru, Christian, legal, certificate, license, edit, editor, proofread, proofreader, proofreading, English, Indonesian to English, ijazah, peraturan, government, pemerintahan, pemerintah


Profile last updated
Sep 27, 2020



More translators and interpreters: Indonesian to English - English to Indonesian   More language pairs



Your current localization setting

English

Select a language

All of ProZ.com
  • All of ProZ.com
  • Term search
  • Jobs
  • Forums
  • Multiple search