CC BY
32
Reliance Housing Stimulus Program, where the target to be completed by 2019 is 1,750,000 housing units on the construction of new self-reliance houses of 250,000 units and an increase of self-reliance housing quality by 1,500,000 units. In 2015, the program is planned to build 20,756 new housing units and improve the quality of 61,4489 old housing units (the Ministry of Public Works and Housing, 2016). The following is the realization of the program in 2015 in 31 provinces of Indonesia.
Total Papua Papua Barat Maluku Utara Maluku Sulawesi Barat Gorontalo Sulawesi Tenggara Sulawesi Selatan Sulawesi Tengah Sulawesi Utara Kalimantan Utara Kalimantan Timur Kalimantan Selatan Kalimantan Tengah Kalimantan Barat Nusa Tenggara Timur Nusa Tenggara Barat Bali Banten Jawa Timur DI Yogyakarta Jawa Tengah Jawa Barat DKI Jakarta Kepulauan Riau Kepulauan Bangka Belitung Lampung Bengkulu Sumatera Selatan Jambi Riau
Sumatera Barat Sumatera Utara Aceh
82.58 85.16
72.50
87.65 80.48
90.99
I 82.93 ■ 86.37 85.72 85.37
79.77
70.02 71.12 79.84
75.74
89.06 88.53 88.30
74.05 81.52 90.76
77.40
90.77 81.58
87.59 90.71
84.27 83.09 84.13
71.53 72.89
Total Papua Papua Barat Maluku Utara Maluku Sulawesi Barat Gorontalo Sulawesi Tenggara Sulawesi Selatan Sulawesi Tengah Sulawesi Utara Kalimantan Utara Kalimantan Timur Kalimantan Selatan Kalimantan Tengah Kalimantan Barat Nusa Tenggara Timur Nusa Tenggara Barat Bali Banten Jawa Timur DI Yogyakarta Jawa Tengah Jawa Barat DKI Jakarta Kepulauan Riau Kepulauan Bangka Belitung Lampung Bengkulu Sumatera Selatan Jambi Riau
Sumatera Barat Sumatera Utara Aceh
8.51 6.96
■ 18.88 17.86
9.85 7.69
■ 3.84 m 4.81 2.78
5.47 3.21
6.86 6.18 6.29
Figure 1 - Percentage of Households by Provinces and the Status of Self-Owned Houses, 2016 (Source: BPS, 2017)
Figure 2 - Percentage of Households by Provinces and the Status of Rented Houses, 2016 (Source: BPS, 2017)
Table 1 - The Number of New Housing Units Built and Old Housing Units Improved by the Self-Reliance Housing Stimulus Program in 2015
n/n Province Quality Improvement New Houses Built Total
2 3 4 5
1 Riau 410 - 410
2 Sumatera Utara 2,289 - 2,289
3 Aceh 1,605 - 1,605
4 Sumatera Barat 4,154 2 4,156
5 Kepulaian Riau 239 - 239
6 Lampung 1,592 1,159 2,751
7 Bengkuli 1,042 377 1,419
8 Sumatera Selatan 1,764 136 1,900
9 Jambi 603 542 1,145
10 Jawa Barat 5,833 3,235 9,068
11 Banten 13 826 839
12 Jawa Tengah 12,414 1,322 13,736
13 D.I. Yogyakarta 575 1,746 2,321
14 Jawa Timur 5,043 1,617 6,660
15 Kalimantan Barat 3,164 9 3,173
16 Kalimantan Selatan 1,742 3 1,745
17 Kalimantan Tengah 1,721 - 1,721
18 Kalimantan Utara 110 1 111
8.71
1 2 3 4 5
19 Kalimantan Timur 488 - 488
20 Gorontalo 1,437 1,616 3,053
21 Sulawesi Selatan 2,173 - 2,173
22 Sulawesi Tengah 3,318 1,350 4,668
23 Sulawesi Tenggara 2,974 218 3,192
24 Sulawesi Utara 693 - 693
25 Sulawesi Barat 1,353 167 1,520
26 Bali 609 1,080 1,689
27 Nusa Tenggara Barat 1,587 3,090 4,677
28 Maluku 1,398 - 1,398
29 Maluku Utara 938 583 1,521
30 Papua 208 710 918
31 Papua Barat - 967 967
Total 61,489 20,756 82,245
Source: The Directorate General of The Ministry of Public Works and Housing RI, 2016.
Construction of houses along with infrastructure, facilities, and public utilities can indirectly encourage regional growth and regional economy, can support socio-cultural development as well as can provide a tangible contribution to improving the quality of housing, economic growth, poverty alleviation, and welfare improvement. Therefore, the development of a decent and healthy housing and environment is a way for the development of Indonesian human resources in the future. This study aims to see the perceptions of thelow income communities as the receivers of the assistance and see the effect of the program in improving the quality of habitable home.
LITERATURE REVIEW
In 2015, the Government of the Republic of Indondesia launched the Million Houses Program to reduce the housing backlog. One of the main targets of the Million Houses Program is the low-income communities. The success or failure of the national program is not only seen from the number of houses built, but also the accuracy of the target of providing houses, i.e. for low-income people. Based on the income levels, laborers and employees whose income is the same as the Provincial Minimum Wage are included in the low-income criterion. In addition, there are also poor people living below the poverty line, which ranks at the bottom of the low-income level.
Low-Income Communities. The low-income community, hereinafter abbreviated as LIC, based on the Act Number 11 of 2011 regarding Housing and Settlement Area, refers to those with limited purchasing power so it is necessary for them to get government support to obtain housing. Article 126 of the Act states that the government and local governments provide facilities and/or assistance in the form of finance for the construction and acquisition of public houses and self-reliance houses for these low-income people. There are 3 (three) segments of the low-income people based on the ability to access home ownership. They are the low-income people: who already own land or houses but are unable to build/repair their houses; who are able to buy a house but of low ability to repay the mortgage; and who cannot afford to buy a house.
Habitable House. Based on the regulation of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing Number 20/PRT/M/2014 on the liquidity facility of housing finance in the framework of obtaining housing through credit for low-income people (changed by the regulation Number 20/PRT/M/2015), the target group of the Housing Credit Program represents those low-income people with regular income and with irregular income. The income limit of the target group of the Housing Credit Program is the people with income of IDR 4 million for the landed house.
A habitable house is a house that meets the building safety requirements, th minimum adequacy of building area, and the occupant health. To meet the requirements as a habitable house, the criteria and technical requirements are as follows.
1. The Criteria:
a. Meet building safety requirements, including:
• Lower structure/foundation;
• Structure/column and log (beam);
• Upper structure.
b. Ensure health includes lighting, air circulation and sanitation;
c. Meets minimum minimum adequacy of 7.2m2/person up to 12m2/person. 2. The Technical Requirements:
a. Safety/security factors. The house can provide a sense of security for
residents and the environment around the house. The structure of the building must be in accordance with the condition of the land where the house is built, so the structure is able to withstand dead loads and live loads therein and the burden arising from certain natural conditions, such as earthquakes, wind and flood.
b. Health factors. In addition to providing a sense of security for its inhabitants, the house must also meet health standards such as caring systems and optimal natural lighting, good sanitation and the use of building materials that do not interfere with occupant health and the environment.
c. Comfort factors. The house is able to provide comfort for the inhabitants, including:
• circulation or spaces associated with the organization of relations between rooms of the house;
• temperature, the house can be used as a refuge from the hot weather during the day and cold air during the night; and
• view, the home can maintain the privacy of the occupants when performing certain activities without the worries of being seen from the outside.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
This study examines the perspective of low-income communities as the beneficiaries of the program in the sub-program of home improvement. This study was conducted in 2015 in Central Java Province as the province had the highest number of beneficiaries in 2015. The population consisted of 12,414 people in one (1) city and twenty-one (21) regencies. The sample of the study conisted of 388 respondents, obtained using Slovin formula with a 5%. The determination of sample per region (city and regency) was done proportionally because the number of beneficiaries was not the same in each city and region. The distribution of samples in each city and regency is as follows:
Table 2 - Sample Proportion According to the City and Regency in Central Java
n/n City/Regency Population Sample
2 3 4
1 Kota Pekalongan (city) 50 2
2 Kabupaten Brebes (regency) 921 29
3 Kabupaten Pemalang (regency) 269 8
4 Kabupaten Batang (regency) 433 14
5 Kabupaten Wonosobo (regency) 671 21
6 Kabupaten Banyumas (regency) 243 8
7 Kabupaten Kebumen (regency) 1.421 44
8 Kabupaten Purwokerto (regency) 705 22
9 Kabupaten Klaten (regency) 897 28
10 Kabupaten Wonogiri (regency) 450 14
11 Kabupaten Sukoharjo (regency) 901 28
12 Kabupaten Sragen (regency) 691 22
13 Kabupaten Tegal (regency) 656 21
14 Kabupaten Pekalongan (regency) 798 25
15 Kabupaten Jepara (regency) 371 12
16 Kabupaten Boyolali (regency) 472 15
17 Kabupaten Temanggung (regency) 397 12
18 Kabupaten Semarang (regency) 775 24
1 2 3 4
19 Kabupaten Pati (regency) 325 10
20 Kabupaten Kendal (regency) 665 21
21 Kabupaten Magelang (regency) 83 3
22 Kabupaten Cilacap (regency) 220 7
Total 12.414 388
Source: The Directorate General of The Ministry of Public Works and Housing RI, 2016.
This data analysis technique uses a description analysis. It is used to describe or give an idea of the object under study through the data or samples collected as it is without making any analyses or conclusions. In other words, the descriptive analysis takes the problems or focuses on the problems as they are when the research is conducted; the results of which are then processed and analyzed for conclusion (Sugiono, 2009). Prior to the analysis, research instruments were tested for validity and reliability.
RESULTS OF STUDY
The initial stage of this study was testing the instrument validity to the questionnaire used. The results of the questionnaire validity test against the 16 (sixteen) items about te habitable home variables were valid. The value of r-count was greater than the r-table for the whole items. Furthermore, after the validity test, the reliability test with alpha 1% (N-2) was performed. The result was that the correlation coefficient value greater than the r-table value (0.877> 0.148); thus, the instrument was significantly reliable. To capture the perspective of respondents, questionnaires with closed questions were used. There were sixteen (16) statements with A-D alternatives.
Physical Factors of the Building. This relates to the level of house damage before receiving the assistance. There were 283 or 73% of low-income people. The house damage before receiving assistance reached 26% - 50%. There were 89 people (23%) experienced <25% house damage, and 16 people exepereinced 51% -75% house damage. After the program, 206 (53%) people stated that their house was much better compared to the previous condition, 167 (42%) people stated that their house was better, and 19 (5%) people stated that their house was quite good.
Related to the width of the house before getting assistance, as many as 171 (44%) people had about 51 m2 to 75 m2, 167 (43%) people had about 37 m2 to 50 m2, 43 (11%) people had > 76 m2, and 8 (8%) had a total area of > 36 m2. The addition of house building area after the program by 25% was experienced by 237 (61%) people, by 50% was experienced by 147 (38%) people, and by 75% was experienced by 4 (1%) people.
In terms of improving the quality of houses, the program requires the beneficiaries to pay attention to building materials used, such as the roof. The material previously used by 241 (62%) people was asbestos, 78 (20%) people used rumbia, 66 (17%) people used zinc corrugated roof, and 4 (1%) people used the roof tile. After the program, 233 (60%) people used the roof tile. As many as 85 (17%) people still used asbestos, and the rest70 (18%) people used zinc corrugated roof.
The next material to change was the wall. Wall materials used by the community were mostly wood. A total of 287 (74%) people still used woods for the walls, 16 (4%) people used concrete, 31 (8%) used tarpaulins, and 54 (14%) people used other types of materials. After the program, 198 (51%) people used concrete, 120 (31%) used woods, and used 19 (5%) tarpaulins.
The program also required beneficiaries to use appropriate flooring materials for the improvement of quality of life. Currently, as many as 287 (74%) people used no tiles, 89 (23%) used cement flooring, and 12 (3%) people already used ceramics. The change after the program was the use of the ceramic material by 241 (62%) people and cement flooring by 147 (38%) people.
Health Factors. The home environment health in this study is based on Ministerial Regulation Number 06 of 2013 on Guidelines for Implementation of Self-Reliance Housing Stimulus Program. Article 3 states that the type of assistance provided may be the
construction of infrastructure, facilities, and utilities attached to the house, among others, sources and networks of clean water, bathrooms, landfills.
Source: Primary Data Processed 2017.
Figure 3 - The Perspective of the Low-Income Communities on the House Improvement Sub-Program through the Self-Reliance Housing Stimulus Program (Physical Building Factor)
Source: Primary Data Processed 2017.
Figure 4 - The Perspective of the Low-Income Communities on the House Improvement Sub-Program through the Self-Reliance Housing Stimulus Program (Health Factor)
The surrounding environment of the houses of the low-income communities is not so healthy. For drinking water infrastructure, 171 (44%) people utilized river water, 120 (31%) people used drilled well water, and 97 (25%) people used spring as the drinking water source. After the program, 144 (37%) people already used springs as the drinking water source, 124 (32%) people still used drilled well water, and 47 (12%) people kept on using river water as a the source of drinking water. Some communities have also realized the
importance of healthy drinking water sources; thus, a large number of people already used the water provided by the local water company.
As many as 206 (53%) people used public toilets. A total of 47 (12%) people still used the river, 113 (29) people used water closet (WC) in their house, and as many as 23 (6%) used other facilities. The real change after the program was the increase in the number of people using private water closet (WC) as many as 287 (74%), 62 (16%) used the public toilets, while others still used the river.
Another environmental health factor is related to landfills. Before the program, most of the people preferred to burn the garbage. Based on the result of the research, there were 237 (61%) people burnt their garbage, 120 (31%) people dumped the garbage in the river, 23 (6%) buried their garbage, and only 8 (2%) people dumped garbage in a landfill around their house. Following the program, 202 (52%) people used the landfill, 147 (38%) people still burnt their garbage, 31 (8%) people buried their garbage, and the real impacts arising from the program was a lower number of people throwing their garbage in the river, which was only 8 (2%) people.
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Based on the results of the analysis, it can be seen that from the perspective of low-income communities receiving the program, there has been an increase in the quality of the habitable house building from the aspects of physical factors. Before the program, the level of damage was 26% to 50%, yet after the program, the condition of the house has been very good. The house building area after the program has increased by 25%. The roofing material has been changed to tiles, the walls have been changed to concrete, and almost all floors have already used ceramics.
Based on the results of the analysis, it can be seen that from the perspective of low-income communities receiving the program, there has been an increase in the quality of the habitable house building from the aspects of the health of the surrounding environment. The people mostly nowadays have used drilled well water. Before the program, most of them used the river water and springs as a source of drinking water. In addition to drinking water, after the program, the community already has had a water closet (WC) inside the house, where previously most of them used the river as the toilet. The other benefit of the program is that the community now has a garbage dump in each house, so they do not dispose household garbage in the river or by burning and burying.
The idea that 'occupant control' contributes to the impacts of the habitable home has been proven. The idea is supported by Huchzermeyer and Omenya (2004), comparing the independent self-reliance houses with non-independent self-reliance houses (let alone government intervention too strong). Independent self-help house is better and wider and grows much better. This is also supported by the high sense of belonging by the residents that result in their high satisfaction. Based on the results of research conducted by Carmon and Gayrieli (1987), comparing self-reliance and non-self-reliance housing, the first housing produced more qualitative homes, better neighborly relationships, and more satisfied residents. In addition, the community is also encouraged to maintain its environmental conditions. This condition is achieved with only a small government cost compared to non-self-reliance housing (Ntema, 2011). Habitable home conditions can have an impact on improving the condition of the economy of its inhabitants. It is evident that improved family economic conditions encourage gradual improvement of housing conditions (quality and extent) (Pugh, 2001). Nevertheless, the occupant control can encourage residents to ignore the economic difficulties they face and still improve the quality of their homes.
CONCLUSION
From the study, it can be concluded that the Self-Reliance Housing Stimulus Program of the Ministry of Public Works and Housing is able to give a direct impact on the improvement of the quality of habitable home. The improved quality is in the physical quality
and home environment health. The success of the program cannot be separated from the support and active participation of the low-income communities. The form of support is self-funding and the participation of family members and beneficiary groups in the house building process.
Theoretically, this study can be used as a reference about the Self-Reliance Housing Stimulus Program. In addition, it can also increase knowledge and insight on how to improve the quality of habitable home for the low-income people). The Ministry of Public Works and Housing must manage the program well to realize what has been mandated in the 1945 Constitution and Article 28H of the amended 1945 Constitution in which each citizen is entitled to live and get a good and healthy living environment .
LIMITATION AND FUTURE STUDY
This study does not include all the criteria and technical requirements of a habitable house determined by the Indonesian government. Criteria not been included in the study are (1) health factors including optimal air and natural lighting, air circulation and sanitation; (2) safety/security factors including the structure of the building that must be in accordance with the condition of the land where the house is built, so the house is able to withstand dead loads and live loads as well as the burdens arising from certain natural conditions such as earthquakes, wind, and flood; (3) comfort factors such as circulation or movement of space, temperature, and so forth.
This study also needs further development as to calculate the amount of leverage that occurs along with the self-reliance housing program to improve the quality of the houses. As it is known, the self-reliance housing is designed for residents to develop their own houses in the long term. This is in accordance with Turner's idea that a house should be viewed as a verb and not a noun. A house should be regarded as a process (Turner, 1976), so it will never finish but will continue to grow. Similarly, when observations are made, they are not recommended to be instantaneous (snap shot) but in a long time.
REFFERENCES
1. Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 pasal 28H ayat 1. www.hukumonline.com
2. Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia nomor 11 Tahun 2011 tentang Perumahan dan Kawasan Permukiman. www.hukumonline.com.
3. Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat Republik Indonesia nomor 06 Tahun 2013 tentang Pedoman Pelaksanaan Bantuan Stimulan Perumahan Swadaya. www.birohukum.pu.go.id.
4. Peraturan Menteri Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat Republik Indonesia nomor 20 Tahun 2015 tentang perubahan atas peraturan menteri pekerjaan umum dan perumahan rakyat nomor 20 tahun 2014 tentang Fasilitas Likuiditas Pembiayaan Perumahan dalam Rangka Perolehanrumah Melalui Kredit/Pembiayaan Pemilikan Rumah Sejahterabagi Masyarakat Berpenghasilan Rendah. www.birohukum.pu.go.id.
5. Badan Pusat Statistik Jakarta Pusat , 2017. Statistik Indonesia Tahun 2016. Jakarta Pusat: Badan Pusat Statistik.
6. Carmon, Naomi dan Gayrieli, Tamar. 1987. Improving Housing by Conventional Versus Self-help Methods: Evidence From Israel. Urban Study, 24 (4), 324-332, Agustus.
7. Direktorat Rumah Swadaya. 2016. Pengembangan Pelaksanaan Bantuan Rumah Swadaya. Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum dan Perumahan Rakyat Republik Indonesia: Jakarta
8. Huchzermeyer, M. & Omenya, A. (eds). 2004. Housing Definitions for Republic of South Africa. Directorate of Policy and Programme Monitoring, National Department of Housing, Pretoria, South Africa
9. Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional. 2014a. Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Nasional (RPJMN) 2015-2019: Buku I Agenda Pembangunan Nasional, Kementerian Perencanaan Pembangunan Nasional: Jakarta.
10. Ntema, Lejone John. 2011. Self-Help Housing in South Africa: Paradigms, Policy and Practice. Disertasi. Faculty of The Econodmic and Management Sciences (Centre for Development Support) University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, Afrika Selatan.
11. Mungkasa. 2011. Perumahan Swadaya Konsep, Pembelajaran dan Praktek Unggulan. Bappenas, Jakarta.
12. Pugh, C. 2001. The Theory and Practice of Housing Sector Development for Developing Countries, 1950-99. Housing Studies, 16(4), 399-423.
13. Sugiyono. 2009. Metode Penelitian Bisnis (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, dan R&D). Bandung: Alfabeta.
14. Turner, J.F.C. 1976. Housing by People. Towards Autonomy in Building Environments. Marion Byers, London.
DOI https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2017-11.32
LEGAL PROTECTION OF CREDITURS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SUBSIDY CREDIT
WITH GUARANTEE SECURITY LETTER
Hosada Esa*, Hartanto Andy
Faculty of Law, Narotama University of Surabaya, Indonesia *E-mail: hosadha888@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
In the case of Mortgage buyer can not appear before a Notary or PPAT, Article 15 of the Law Mortgage provides the opportunity for the assigning of dependents to use the Power of Attorney Imposing Mortgage (SKMHT). Based on the research we concluded that, SKMHT this period to be increased to APHT for 1 month to 3 months registered land and for the land has not been registered. This time period according to Article 15 (5) of the Act Mortgage excluded by Minister of State for Agrarian Affairs / Head of National Land Agency Number 4 of 1996 concerning the use of an expiration date SKMHT to guarantee repayment of certain credits. In the area of mortgages, especially for mortgages subsidized SKMHT time period is set during the loan period so that the debtor is not burdened with the cost APHT again. These rules are not in line with the execution of the auction mortgages arranged by auction house KPKNL (the State Property Office and Auction) because the main requirement can be done auction security rights that is the SHT (certificate of encumbrance) in the UUPA.
KEY WORDS
Power subsidy, legal credit, small business, loan guarantee.
The making of SKMHT is possible in the case that the right to land which is the object of the Mortgage Right has not yet been certified. In the mortgage agreement (mortgage) the debtor receiving the loan provides collateral in the form of house and land purchased from the credit facility of the bank. Bank lending bank usually only as the holder of SKMHT alone, because the right of land rights which is the object of guarantee has not been done individually. In the Housing Loan agreement (KPR) there are 3 (three) related parties, namely: the debtor (consumer) party is the buyer of the house built by the developer with the money borrowed from the bank; the creditor party is the bank as a funding bank which provides credit facilities in the form of money used by the debtor to pay for the house purchased from the developer; developers are developers and builders of housing projects ie houses that are sold to buyers either in cash or credit.
To guarantee credit payment in accordance with the terms of the credit agreement, the debtor agrees to provide the house and land purchased with the bank's credit. In Article 4 of Ownership Credit Agreement made by the State Savings Bank, it is stated that if the collateral in the form of house and land is deemed to be insufficient, the debtor may add certain other items which the bank specifies as additional collateral. 1 Housing Loans (KPR) granted for housing procurement under Article 1 Paragraph (2) of Regulation of the State Minister of Agrarian Affairs / Head of BPN concerning the Stipulation of Deadline for the Use of Power of Attorney to Charge the Guarantee (SKMHT) to guarantee Types of Specific Credits
During the achievements in credit agreements pledged with Rights. Deposit is fulfilled well by the debtor, then the right of dependent as security right does not look its function. New Deposit right works if the debtor has an appointment injury. Article 4 paragraphs (1) and (2) of UUHT determined that what may be the object of Mortgage Right is the right to land from: property rights; cultivation rights; building rights; use rights on state land which by their nature must be registered and transferable.
1 Hermansyah, Hukum perbankan Nasional Indonesia (edisi revisi), Jakarta,Kencana Prenada Media Group, 2005, hlm. 126
