Tentang Perjanjian Perkawinan

Januari selalu jadi bulan yang penting untuk gue. Di bulan Januari, tepatnya 1 Januari, gue ulang tahun. Penekanan pada 1 Januari :D. Tahun ini, umur gue jadi 24 tahun. Umur yang dulu gue perkirakan untuk menikah. Ya, ga kayak laki-laki lain, gue mau nikah muda. Apa lacur, gue belum lulus kuliah hehehe. Jadi untuk kalian yang tadinya tertipu sama bio Twitter gue, gue pastikan gue masih mahasiswa. Tapi jangan tanya semester berapa.

Dengan umur yang makin menua, orangtua gue mulai nanya pertanyaan yang ditanyain ke anak-anak yang umurnya udah cukup: kapan nikah? Gue kaget. Jangankan menikah, pacaran aja kadang-kadang ga bisa karena ga punya duit.

Nikah kan ga segampang mengubah status di Facebook. Ya untuk sebagian orang sih gampang ya, walaupun sebenernya mereka belum kawin juga. Tapi gejolak darah muda mereka mendorong mereka untuk menampilkan status married di info mereka. Gue sih merasa gue belum pantas untuk nikah. Rumah belum ada, mobil masih nyicil, tabungan belum cukup. Pacar sih ada :D

Beberapa hari yang lalu gue diceritain cerita yang menarik sama temen gue, Ryzza. Dia bilang, ada temennya yang sebenernya udah mau nikah sama pacarnya tapi dia belum mau sebelum dia punya rumah pribadi dan mobil pribadi. Mungkin dia tipe orang yang berprinsip harus pas-pasan untuk nikah. Pas mau ada rumah, ada. Pas mau ada mobil, ada. Tapi ternyata pemikiran di belakang itu cerdas juga: kalo nanti dia cerai sama istrinya, rumah dan mobil yang dia punya ga akan bisa diambil sama istrinya karena harta itu harta bawaan dia sendiri pas nikah.

Kalo lo nikah, ada dua jenis harta yang akan muncul: harta bawaan (harta yang emang udah lo punya sebelum nikah) dan harta bersama (harta yang didapat selama lo nikah). Biasanya sih kalo cerai harta bawaan ga akan diganggu gugat, karena toh emang itu harta lo sendiri. Nah, beda urusan kalo harta bersama. Harta bersama akan dibagi-bagi kalo lo cerai karena ya itu didapat pas lo nikah. Tapi apakah harta bersama akan selalu jadi bahan berantem? Ngga juga. Ada solusi yang bisa lo ambil: Bikin perjanjian pra nikah (bahasa hukumnya sih perjanjian perkawinan kalo ga salah).

Bikin perjanjian pra nikah ga susah sih sebenernya. Yang mau lo perjanjikan juga terserah sama lo, karena prinsip perjanjian kan terbuka untuk yang membuatnya. Masalah yang terjadi itu biasanya masalah sosial. Karena masyarakat Indonesia belum terbiasa untuk bikin perjanjian pra nikah, giliran mau bikin nanti dikira emang udah siap-siap mau cerai. Inlaander banget ah :D

Tapi coba lo bayangin deh, lo mau nikah trus bikin perjanjian pra nikah. Kalo orangtua lo tau, siap-siap aja diceramahin sampe taun depan soal kesakralan pernikahan dsb dll. Secara sosial, perjanjian pra nikah emang belum umum. Tapi secara hukum, perjanjian pra nikah perlu untuk kepastian dan jaminan. Karena memang itulah tujuan hukum sebenernya: untuk memberikan kepastian dan jaminan kepada para subjek hukum.

Pada akhirnya, kita harus bisa membedakan antara cinta dan logika. Walaupun kedua hal tersebut memang ga akan mungkin bisa berjalan beriringan, tapi paling ngga sebagai penasihat hukum lo, gue berkewajiban untuk ngasih tau lo mana yang sebaiknya dilakukan dan mana yang jangan dilakukan.


Disclaimer: Sekarang gue sudah Sarjana Hukum. Jadi yang butuh konsultasi di bidang hukum, gue sangat terbuka untuk itu. [promosi]

Bandung - Babakan Siliwangi - Jakarta

I went to Bandung last weekend. The city never fails to amaze me.

Unlike my usual trip of hedonism through the factory outlets, distros, or clubs of Bandung, I went to Babakan Siliwangi, an urban forest near Dago. I was captivated.

It wasn’t as majestic as you’d think, but the spirit of Bandung’s youth that surrounds the area is just magical. The students of ITB built a verandah in the forest in approximately two weeks. I reckon it’d take the city officials more than a month to build. Not to mention a number of traditional art shops located in the area. The green area is simply breath taking for a fellow accustomed to Jakarta’s pollution and its concrete jungle.

A dear friend took me there, and she told me that the forest would be torn down to make way for an apartment. FYI, there’s already an apartment that doesn’t sell very well just a kilometer away. Now there’s a reason to tear down a public landmark for private use. Kind of reminds me of the old Persija basecamp case.

There’s also news that Universitas Indonesia’s forest will be torn down to make way for a driving range and a horse-riding arena. My esprit de corps to my almamater is high, so my comments might be bias, but this kind of idiocy is just alarming.

For so many years I’ve been dreaming to have a cooler, pedestrian friendly Jakarta. I’ve been dreaming to have an outdoorsy place where people can gather and conduct physical activities, like the South Bank in Brisbane or the Botanical Garden of Bogor. Yet, the city officials of Bandung and Universitas Indonesia’s brass are considering to wipe off some of their greens to accommodate insignificant constructions.

An urban forest or a city park in Jakarta might decrease the number of Jakartans going to malls to conduct social gatherings, yet more malls and shopping centers are built and I don’t see the government working to secure a safe and comfortable sidewalks in Jakarta. But hey, we still have our beloved Taman Menteng, don’t we?

Amid the buzz of who will be DKI 1, Jakartans should really highlight the problems of Jakarta. Let the so-called elites squander on campaign smearing, we have better things to address: our well being.

Never-ending congestions, crappy public transportation system, broken sidewalks, unsafe security, not enough public space, hygiene, insufficient amount of trash bins are among the problems of Jakarta from my perspective. What’s your’s?

Or is the topic not as sexy as the possibility of Jokowi governing our city?

Little People Belittle People

One should never judge another person’s professionalism. Unless they become drug overlords or smuggle beautiful white Sundanese females, then basically they’re doing fine. Even lawyers who represent alleged corrupters shouldn’t be deemed as the Devil’s apprentice because, let’s face it, they’re not sentenced yet and therefore aren’t ‘guilty’.

So what right does one have to judge others’ way of earning a living? None. Even if that One has different political views from the judged person? Of course.

Hypothetically speaking, if I were to pledge myself supporting Faisal Basri –hypothetical because I won’t be choosing. Not a Jakartan- then I won’t have any right claiming that Iman is a political whore merely because he give strategies –the type of strategies are including but not limited to, let’s say, hypothetically speaking, social media- to Alex Noerdin, Nono Sampono, or even Bang Foke just because I don’t like those three names.

Should I belittle him as a lesser being personally, maybe. But to pass judgments, failed judgments, as to how he works are just horrendous. The man is merely being a professional, and I, while continuously giving him harsh judgments, am becoming the belittled person I curse Iman as.

Iman should not take my so-called idealism into heart, because he will also drown in the boggled mind that I am in. Instead, befriend me as he always has and show me who the bigger person is.

Of course, if that last sentence were to happen, it would be the other way around.

Please Don't Take My FPI Away

It’s really frustrating how we are supposed to pardon their abrupt actions, yet whenever they’re on the other side of the coin, the whole world is on their case. No, I’m not talking about nagging girlfriends on PMS, I’m talking about the infamous Islamic Defenders Front or better known as FPI. For years, the so-called defenders of Islam have been a nuisance to the country. News of them raging in clubs, bars, and to other groups is as common as Arsenal’s futile challenge in the BPL for years. But then again, there seems to be no real actions to minimize their sometimes ruthless actions.

Calls of their disband have increased along with their unreasonable tantrum. Sure, that’s a logical response. Everyone of us wants, no, needs to feel safe and secure from what ever evil may lurk around the corner. The law even ensures that right by stipulating it in the Human Rights Law. But the constitution, our staatsgrundgesetz, also ensures each and every Indonesian citizen to gather and form organisations, embodying it in the Mass Organisation Law of 1985.

Disbanding mass organisations is not really an issue, at least historically. There were several organisations that were disbanded in the New Order regime, a couple were namely Indonesian Islamic Students (PII) and Young Marhaenist Movement (GPM). The respected organisations were disbanded because they were, according to the Domestic Affairs Minister at the time, not inline with the law. I find that a little troubling, bearing in mind the regime those organisations were in. But in sense, the government were merely exercising their sovereignty over the people. Then what about the case on FPI?

A troublesome lot they are, but no one seems to want to take any actions. All that our beloved –mind the sarcasm- president could address is for FPI to introspect their doings. Coming from a president that can only add more concern with his expression of concern, I am not surprised. But what about the police? Have they taken any actions towards FPI? What about the State Minister? Or even the Religion Minister?

A group, or should I say a tribe, finally had the guts to stand up to them. The Dayak tribe of Central Kalimantan stood up to those goons by rejecting their coming to the province. I can never see this happening in the State’s Capital for as long as we know, they’re bred here. But can the action of the Dayaks be accounted as legal? Have they betrayed the spirit of the constitution by intervening FPI’s right to gather?

In my previous article, I wrote an analogy about sovereignty. This case shows the perfect analogy for a sovereignty to be exercised. The most important thing about sovereignty is that it ends once it meets other sovereign entity. FPI’s sovereignty to gather and conduct their belief can be halted once it intrudes other people’s right. But wouldn’t we be intruding their right to gather?

Disbanding FPI, or other disturbing mass organization for that matter, is a never-ending debate. I say, let them be. At least for the time being. If they run havoc, treat each and one of them as criminal individuals. What’s so hard about taking care of a bunch of white-gowned goons? Oh, sorry, you need good police officers for this.

Having them in one place is better than having a bunch of anonymous people run amok. It is also easier for the government, assuming they are doing their job, to keep an eye of what the scoundrels are doing. Take what happened in England as an example, the government took their time & money to deradicalise young extremists in extremist groups. It’s only a matter of ability and willingness from the government.

Have them disbanded, be my guest. That won’t stop other groups, or even the disbanded group, to form another group. To add to this, the house of representative is discussing a a new Mass Organisation Bill. My take, instead of passing a law on mass organisations or even weed, pass a law that legalizes you to kill bigots and ignorant people.

The group’s as stubborn as a mule, I know. Their notorious violence is ironic to the name of the peaceful Islam. But that’s what you get with democracy, idiots running around expressing their deluded minds. 

What I Talk About When I Talk About Sovereignty

A friend of mine kept complaining how his girlfriend is a constant pain in the ass, especially during the weekends. Weekends, for us boys, is the time when we can sit back, drink a glass of lager while supporting, in a plastic kind of way, our respective football clubs. But that wouldn’t be the case for those with nagging girlfriends. Those blokes must entertain their girlfriends and might miss out on their clubs game on the telly. This, my friends, is a serious breach of our dignity and, in terms of public international law, our sovereignty as an individual.

Might I remind you that the term ‘sovereignty’ is a term well-known in public international law. Charles Fenwick defines sovereignty as “the independent personality of the State in its relation with other members of the international community”, while J.G. Starke explains sovereignty as a supreme authority by the State to exercise over persons and property to the exclusion over other States. In short, sovereignty is a supreme authority one might have to exercise its jurisdiction within oneself and the ability to interact with other sovereign subjects. Then how did I dare to make an analogy of a term used in public international into such a colloquial use? Besides that I’m an international law scholar, it’s because you can basically see ‘sovereignty’ in your everyday events.

The closest thing you can feel the exercise of sovereignty is in your own household. Your parents, as heads of the household, may exercise their supreme authority over you and your siblings until you are legally old enough to do your own errands. Although you have your own room, don’t think of it as your very own sovereign land. Think of it as a small autonomous land given to you from your parents’ kindness. You should expect your mum entering your room without knocking, though you hanged your sock on the handle. No biggie, it’s their ‘sovereign land’ anyways. As long as you are in your parents’ house, you are bound by their rules.

As I said earlier, sovereignty can be analogised to simpler meanings. It’s inherent in each and everyone of us. We are even sovereign of our own bodies. When us football heads stay up in the middle of the night to watch Man United against Barcelona, we are actually exercising our right to our own body. We know our body needs rest, but heck we watch it anyway. We can interact with other people, have social lives, do our jobs, make enemies, get in fights, and determine sexual orientations in the name of sovereignty.

Some might mistake sovereignty with independence, I won’t blame them since sovereignty is interchangeable with independence. One cannot exercise their sovereignty, if one is not independent. That is why, I guess, every wealthy province in Indonesia is aching to be independent.

So whenever your girlfriend is nagging you to hangout on the weekends, you can always say, “bitch please, I wanna watch some footie, so butt off. If you’re still nagging, I take that as a breach of my sovereignty”.

PS: the author will not be held liable for any reason should there be any arguments, breakups, or parting of some sort by any couple that may occur after reading this article. Cheers.

Afriyani Tidak Bersalah!!

Saya sebagai advokat profesional yang telah dipercaya oleh nona Afriyani sebagai penasihat hukumnya menyatakan bahwa nona Afriyani tidak dapat dihukum berdasarkan tuduhan yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak kepolisian. Untuk itu, saya menuliskan surat keberatan ini agar seluruh pihak memahami hal ini.

Kepolisian Republik Indonesia telah mengeluarkan pernyataan bahwa klien saya melakukan perbuatan sesuai dengan Pasal 338 Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP). Pasal tersebut menyatakan bahwa klien saya telah dengan sengaja melakukan perbuatan yang menyebabkan hilangnya nyawa orang lain. Saya menyatakan sekali lagi, klien saya tidak dapat dihukum berdasarkan pernyataan tersebut!

Dalam hukum pidana, penguraian unsur dari suatu pasal merupakan hal yang penting karena apabila satu unsur saja tidak terpenuhi, maka pasal tersebut tidak dapat berlaku terhadap orang yang disangkakan. Jadi, mari kita uraikan unsur-unsur yang ada di pasal tersebut.

1. Barangsiapa: Unsur ini menunjuk kepada orang/subjek hukum yang disangkakan melakukan tindak pidana. Barangsiapa tidak secara spesifik menunjuk kepada orang tertentu. Harus ada orang yang disangkakan dalam unsur ‘barangsiapa’ ini. Dalam kasus ini, barangsiapa adalah Afriyani. Unsur ini terpenuhi.
2. Dengan Sengaja: Dalam teori kesengajaan, pelaku harus mengetahui dan menghendaki perbuatan yang dilakukannya. Pelaku pun harus memliki tujuan utama dari kesengajaan perbuatan yang dilakukan. Dalam kasus ini, kesengajaannya terdapat pada kesengajaan untuk menghilangkan nyawa orang lain. Unsur ini menurut saya TIDAK TERPENUHI, karena klien saya tidak bermaksud dari awal untuk menghilangkan nyawa orang lain!!!
3. Hilangnya nyawa orang lain: Dalam unsur ini, harus ada nyawa orang lain yang lain akibat perbuatan dari tersangka. Dalam kasus ini, ada 10 nyawa yang hilang akibat perbuatan tersangka. Unsur ini terpenuhi.

Meskipun unsur hilangnya nyawa orang lain terpenuhi, namun ada satu unsur yang tidak terpenuhi dari pasal tersebut, yaitu unsur kesengajaan. Karena ada satu unsur yang tidak terpenuhi, maka pasal tersebut tidak akan dapat dikenakan kepada klien saya. Oleh karena itu, klien saya TIDAK BERSALAH!!!

Apakah dengan klien saya menyetir dengan keadaan mabuk maka ia memang bertujuan dari awal untuk menghilangkan nyawa orang lain? Tentu tidak!

Sengaja adalah apabila pelaku perbuatan dalam melakukan perbuatannya menghendaki (willens) dan mengetahui (wettens) perbuatan yang dilakukan.

Teori tentang kesengajaan adalah:

1. Teori Kehendak. Opzet ada apabila perbuatan dan akibat suatu delik dikehendaki si pelaku.
2. Teori Bayangan. Opzet ada apabila si pelaku pada waktu mulai melakukan perbuatan, ada bayangan yang terang bahwa akibat yang bersangkutan tercapai, maka dari itu ia menyesuaikan perbuatannya dengan akibat itu.

Macam-macam opzet:

1. sengaja sebagai maksud/tujuan (opzet als oogmerk). Si pelaku melakukan perbuatan sebagai tujuan awalnya. Si pelaku menghendaki akibat perbuatannya.
2. sengaja sebagai keinsyafan kepastian. Pelaku sudah menginsyafi bahwa untuk mencapai tujuan semula/tujuan utama, akan ada perbuatan atau akibat lain yang akan terjadi dan pasti terjadi.
3. Sengaja sebagai keinsyafan kemungkinan. Pelaku sudah menginsyafi bahwa untuk mencapai tujuan semula/tujuan utama, maka mungkin akan timbul perbuatan atau akibat lain yang akan terjadi.

Berdasarkan teori kesengajaan di atas, dapat dilihat bahwa klien saya memang sudah harus sedari awal bertujuan untuk menghilangkan nyawa orang lain. Dalam kasus ini, tidak demikian adanya. Bahwa kemungkinan akan terjadi kecelakaan karena menyetir dalam keadaan mabuk ada, namun klien saya tentu tidak menghendaki dan mengetahui bahwa perbuatannya tersebut akan menghilangkan nyawa orang lain sedari awal.

Apabila saya menjadi jaksa kasus klien saya, saya tidak akan dengan bodohnya menerima pasal yang diajukan oleh kepolisian. Sudah jelas bahwa ada UU lain yang dapat digunakan oleh jaksa untuk menjerat klien saya. Karena kecelakaan tersebut terjadi di jalan raya dan dilakukan pada saat klien saya sedang mengemudikan kendaraan, maka UU yang lebih pantas dikenakan kepada klien saya adalah UU Lalu Lintas. Hal ini karena ada asas lex specialis derogat lege generale, yang berarti hukum yang lebih khusus mengenyampingkan hukum yang umum. UU Lalu Lintas merupakan hukum yang lebih khusus karena mengatur mengenai tindak-tindak pidana yang terjadi di lalu lintas, dibandingkan dengan KUHP yang merupakan hukum umum yang mengatur pidana umum. Apabila saya jaksa, untuk menjerat klien saya, saya akan menggunakan...... Ah, itu kan tugas jaksa, bukan tugas saya.

Akhir kata, apabila kepolisian dan kejaksaan bersikeras untuk menjerat klien saya dengan Pasal 338 KUHP, maka saya pastikan bahwa klien saya TIDAK BERSALAH!!!

Tertanda,

Ucok Siliarliar, SH.