Legal Literacy - Recently, we have been shocked by the statements of Gerindra party cadre Sandiaga Salahudin Uno and Golkar party cadre Erwin regarding the 50 Billion Agreement between Anies and Sandi.

The reason is, both mentioned that Prabowo Subianto as the chairman of the Gerindra party and Anies Rasyid Baswedan as the candidate for Governor of DKI Jakarta in 2017 were bound by an agreement. Not only that, Sandi (as he is called) and Erwin even stated that Anies and Sandi are still bound by a debt agreement which is said to be worth tens of billions of rupiah.

Until finally on February 12, 2023, a letter of agreement circulated which was widely discussed. The author himself obtained the letter of agreement from the Instagram account @politicaljokesid. The following is a screenshot of the agreement letter between Anies Baswedan and Sandiaga Uno.

Analysis of the 50 Billion Rupiah Anies-Sandi Agreement

Anies as the party mentioned in the agreement stated his explanation through Sudirman Said that the agreement was not valid because it had been agreed that the agreement was considered complete or had achieved its performance if Anies-Sandi (Candidates for Governor and Deputy Governor 2017) won the political contest for the election of Governor and Deputy Governor of DKI Jakarta.

What is Performance?

According to Agus Yudha Hernoko, performance in law is understood as something that must be done by the parties in a contract based on the agreement made.

In addition, as stated in Article 1234 of the Civil Code, the essence of a contract often includes three forms of performance:

  1. Giving something;
  2. Performing an action;
  3. Not performing an action.

The performance that has bound the parties must be based on good faith to fulfill their commitments.

Is the 50 Billion Anies-Sandi Agreement valid and still in effect or binding?

In a legal relationship, an engagement will arise between the two parties. According to Article 1233 of the Civil Code, an engagement arises because of an agreement or law.

In the discussion of whether the agreement is valid or not, it is also necessary to convey what are the legal requirements for an agreement that have been regulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, which includes:

  1. the agreement of those who bind themselves;
  2. the capacity of those who make the contract;
  3. a certain thing;
  4. a lawful cause.

If we look at the terms of the agreement above, the agreement between Anies and Sandi can be concluded as a valid and binding agreement but it has been completed so it is no longer valid.

Why is that? Because between the two of them there must be an agreement to bind themselves. This is marked by 2 things, first Sandi's willingness as the lender. Although it is stated in the agreement that the money lent is not Sandi's personal money, but Sandi is the guarantor. Therefore, it can be called the lender.

Likewise with Anies, of course he has the willingness to bind himself, marked by his acceptance of the amount of money promised. Thus, the first condition is met.

Regarding the second condition, of course they are both capable people according to the law so they are called legally capable. This is a certainty because they were both candidates for Governor and Deputy Governor of DKI in 2017, of course they must meet the requirements of being capable according to the law because whether they like it or not, when they become governor they must issue policies that must be issued by people who are capable according to the law.

The third condition has also been met, because based on the letter agreement that is circulating, the object of the agreement, namely money, has been mentioned.

The fourth or last condition is a lawful cause. The meaning of lawful in the condition for the validity of an agreement is not only emphasized on lawful in the sense of religion. However, lawful in this case means lawful in the sense of all rules, both religious rules, moral rules, decency rules, and legal rules. Therefore, the aspect agreed upon must not be something that is not lawful in the sense of the existing rules. For example, it is not allowed to make an agreement to buy and sell drugs, and so on.

Regarding the Anies - Sandi agreement, the fourth condition for the validity of an agreement has been met, because the money agreed upon in the debt agreement is not something that is prohibited by religious law, state law, and is not a reprehensible act.

Since the agreement is legally valid, the discussion will proceed regarding its validity. An agreement generally becomes valid when there is a consensus between both parties and terminates when the agreed-upon performance has been achieved.

However, there are also agreements that conclude upon reaching a specific time. Thus, even if every agreed-upon performance has been completed, it will continue to be valid and must continue to be executed until a specific time limit. For example, an employment agreement, even though the agreed-upon performance has been carried out every day, the agreement continues to be valid until the specified time.

Regarding the Anies-Sandi agreement, based on circulating photos of the agreement letter, it is known that the agreement is valid until the completion of the gubernatorial election.

There are 2 stipulated provisions, the first is that the agreement will continue to be valid until Anies pays IF both fail to win the gubernatorial election. Conversely, the agreement is valid only until the election is over and Anies is not obliged to pay the debt IF both win the political contest in DKI Jakarta.

Given that the existing facts show that both won the political constellation in DKI Jakarta, the agreement is no longer binding because it has been completed.

Thus, the answer to the question "Is the agreement letter valid and still in effect or binding?" The answer is that the agreement is valid and binding, but it has been completed so it is no longer valid and binding.