Legal Protection for Debtors in the Implementation of Fiduciary Guarantee Objects Execution After the Enactment of the Constitutional Court Verdict No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019

Authors

  • Rayhan Aminuddin Haroen Universitas Indonesia

Keywords:

Legal Protection, Debtor, Execution, Fiduciary Guarantee Object

Abstract

This study examines the regulatory arrangements regarding the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects based on the laws and regulations in force in Indonesia, as well as forms of legal protection for debtors in the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects that are not in accordance with Constitutional Court Verdict Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 using the juridical-normative method, with descriptive research type, and data collected through secondary data consisting of legal materials. The conclusions of this study are: Constitutional Court Verdict Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 regulates fiduciary guarantee in which there is no agreement on breach of contract (default) and the debtor’s not willing to submit voluntarily the object that is guaranteed for fiduciary guarantee execution, then all legal mechanisms and procedures in implementing the Fiduciary Guarantee must be carried out and implemented in the same way as the execution of court verdict. The issue that arises in the implementation of this regulation is the creditor who often executes the object of a fiduciary guarantee by force without the consent of the debtor, which is contrary to the verdict. Forms of legal protection that can be given to debtors, namely preventive legal protection and repressive legal protection. This study suggests the Financial Services Authority to carry out intensive and strict supervision of creditors and/or execution of debt collectors who violate laws and regulations in the implementation of the object of fiduciary guarantee, as well as enforce law with sanctions, both administrative and criminal if proven to have committed a violation of these provisions.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Debt Collector Ditangkap di Jatinegara, Rampas Motor Sambil Tenteng Airsoft Gun. (n.d.). Motor Plus. https://www.motorplus-online.com/read/253090954/debt-collector-ditangkap-di-jatinegara-rampas-motor-sambil-tenteng-airsoft-gun?page=all

Debt Collector Suruhan Leasing Tarik Paksa Kendaraan Bermotor, Bagaimana Aturannya? (n.d.). Kompas. https://www.kompas.com/konsultasihukum/read/2021/07/16/060000880/debt-collector-suruhan-leasing-tarik-paksa-kendaraan-bermotor?page=all

Hadjon. (1987). Perlindungan Bagi Rakyat Indonesia. PT. Bina Ilmu.

Hasbullah, F. H. (2009). Hukum Kebendaan Perdata: Hak-Hak yang Memberi Jaminan. In Cetakan III. nd Hill-Co.

Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata.

Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana.

Mahkamah Konstitusi RI. (n.d.). Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia Harus Melalui Pengadilan Negeri. MKRI. https://www.mkri.id/index.php?page=web.Berita&id=18015&menu=2

Muchsin. (2003). Perlindungan dan Kepastian Hukum bagi Investor di Indonesia. Universitas Sebelas Maret.

Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 4 Tahun 2019 tentang Perubahan Atas Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2 Tahun 2015 tentang Tata Cara Penyelesaian Gugatan Sederhana.

Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan No. 35/POJK.05/2018 tentang Penyelenggaraan Usaha Perusaan Pembiayaan.

Peraturan Otoroitas Jasa Keuangan No. 6/POJK.07/2022 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen dan Masyarakat di Sektor Jasa Keuangan.

Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 21 Tahun 2015 tentang Tata Cara Pendaftaran Jaminan Fidusia dan Biaya Pembuatan Akta Jaminan Fidusia.

Prosedur Berperkara Gugatan Sederhana. (n.d.). Mahkamah Agung RI. https://web.pa-sumber.go.id/gugatan-sederhana/

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021.

Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 71/PUU-XIX/2021.

Rahardjo, S. (2000). Ilmu Hukum. In Cetakan V (p. 53). Citra Aditya Bakti.

Soekanto, S. (2019). Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Penerbit Universitas Indonesia.

Sri Mamudji, et al. (2005). Metode Penelitian dan Penulisan Hukum. Badan Penerbit Fakultas Hukum Universitas Indonesia.

Ultimum Remedium: Antara Prinsip Moral dan Prinsip Hukum. (n.d.). Universitas Indonesia. https://www.ui.ac.id/ultimum-remedium-antara-prinsip-moral-dan-prinsip-hukum/

Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia.

Welfiandi, F. (2022). Eksekusi Terhadap Objek Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dan Bentuk Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Debitur. Jurnal Ilmu Sosial Dan Pendidikan, 1, 2052.

Downloads

Published

2022-10-30

How to Cite

Aminuddin Haroen, R. (2022). Legal Protection for Debtors in the Implementation of Fiduciary Guarantee Objects Execution After the Enactment of the Constitutional Court Verdict No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. LEGAL BRIEF, 11(4), 2587–2594. Retrieved from https://legal.isha.or.id/index.php/legal/article/view/497

Issue

Section

National and International Criminal Law