Legal Protection for Debtors in the Execution of Fiduciary Objects in Indonesia

Dewi Putriani Yogosara Lodewijk, Aris Prio Agus Santoso, R. Taufik Nur Muftiyanto

Abstract


In financing agreements, the phenomenon of debtors defaulting is very possible or occurs, so this causes creditors to take steps such as parate execution by using coercive debt collector services. This is justified because it is under the legal umbrella of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law. After the judicial review of Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the execution parate was abolished and the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects must be carried out by submitting a request for execution to the head of the district court, but in the case of Decision Number 157/Pdt.G/2021/Pn Skt, the judge actually rejected the plaintiff's petitum as a debtor who argued that the execution parate by the defendant (creditor) was an unlawful act. The formulation of the problem in this research is how to analyze the judge's legal considerations in determining whether the execution of fiduciary guarantees is valid in Decision Number 157/Pdt.G/2021/Pn Skt? And how is legal protection for debtors related to Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019? This research is included in the type of normative juridical research with a statutory approach. The purpose of this research is to determine the analysis of the judge's legal considerations in determining the validity of the execution of fiduciary guarantees in Decision Number 157/Pdt.G/2021/Pn Skt and to determine the legal protection for debtors in connection with Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. The theoretical benefit of this research is a contribution to legal science, while the theoretical benefit is aimed at legal practitioners. The results of this research are that the plaintiff is not a party who voluntarily surrenders the object of the fiduciary guarantee and is not a party bound by an agreement to determine default, so the judge was wrong in rejecting the plaintiff's petitum which argued that the defendant was valid in the execution parate, and legal protection for the debtor was linked to Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 is contained in Article 23 paragraph (2) and the plaintiff can take legal action to appeal solely to seek correction of the results of a decision that is considered wrong.

Keywords


Legal Protection, Debtor, Creditor, Fiduciary, Execution Parate

Full Text:

PDF

References


S. Jatmiko, “Penyitaan Kendaraan Bermotor Sebagai Barang Bukti Tindak Pidana Pencurian Yang Masih Dalam Objek Jaminan Fidusia,” 2020.

I. Supriyanto, “Penggunaan debt collector dalam eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia dan eksekusi jaminan fidusia tidak terdaftar ditinjau dari Undang-Undang nomor 42 tahun 1992 tentang jaminan fidusia,” J. Ilm. Huk., vol. Vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 12–18, 2022.

Y. Wahyuni, “Parate Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 18/PUUXVII/2019,” Interdiscip. J. LAW, Soc. Sci. Humanit., vol. 2, no. 1, 2021.

R. Maulana, “Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Debitur Atas Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia Tanpa Kesepakatan Dikaitkan Dengan Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia Jo Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019.,” 2023.

M. N. M. MULKI, “Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Debitur Terhadap Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/Puu-Xii/2019 Perspektif Hukum Islam,” 2021.

F. Jadidah, “Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Kreditur Terhadap Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia (Analisis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No 18/Puu-Xvii/2019),” IBLAM Law Rev., vol. Vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 18–38, 2022.

A. A. Asagaf, “Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Kreditur Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 2/Puu-Xix/2021 Tentang Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia,” 2022.

J. Ibrahim, Teori dan Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Malang: Bayumedia Publishing, 2012.

S. Soekanto, Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia, 2005.

J. Sarwono, Metode Riset Untuk Desain Komunikasi Visual. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset, 2020.

A. Prasetya, A. P. A. Santoso, and Y. E. Sigalingging, “Peran Hukum Dalam Pembangunan Dengan Pendekatan Economic Analysis Of Law,” J. Ilmu Sos. dan Pendidik., vol. Vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 211–218, 2023.

E. S. Prasetyo, “Implikasi Putusan Mahkamah Konsitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 Terhadap Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Lembaga Jaminan,” J. Ilmu Huk. Refleks. Huk., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 43–62, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.24246/jrh.2020.v5.i1.p43-62.

L. Tedjosaputro, “Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No 18/PUU-XVII/2019 Terhadap Obyek Jaminan Fiducia,” Spektrum Huk., vol. Vol. 18, no. 1, 2021.

J. H. Manurung, “Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan MK NO: 18/ PUU-XVII/ 2019 dan PUTUSAN MK NO: 2/ PUU-XIX/2021,” J. Huk. Bisnis Bonum Commune, vol. Vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 181–193, 2022.

N. Ma’rifah, “Kepastian Hukum terhadap Kreditur Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dan Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021,” Notary Law J., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 204–226, 2022, doi: 10.32801/nolaj.v1i2.23.

H. Kelsen, General Theory of Law and State (Alih Bahasa oleh Rasisul Muttaqien). Bandung: Nusa Media, 2011.

E. Yulian, “APPI Beberkan Masalah Umum Saat Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia,” 2022. https://infobanknews.com/appi-beberkan-masalah-umum-saat-eksekusi-jaminan-fidusia/.

Muhammad Yasin, “Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia Sulit? Begini Solusi yang Ditawarkan,” Hukumonline.com, 2020. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/eksekusi-objek-jaminan-fidusia-sulit-begini-solusi-yang-ditawarkan-lt5e4e4d35a9e7e/?page=2.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.58258/jihad.v6i3.7153

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2024 Dewi Putriani Yogosara Lodewijk, Aris Prio Agus Santoso, R. Taufik Nur Muftiyanto

View My Stats