Prosedur Eksekusi atas Tindakan Wanprestasi dalam Jaminan Kredit Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019

Authors

  • Rachmatul Istiqomah Universitas Bhayangkara Surabaya
  • Imam Suroso Universitas Bhayangkara Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62383/prosemnashuk.v1i2.41

Keywords:

Credit Agreement, Execution Paragraph, Fiduciary Guarantee

Abstract

Fiduciary collateral as a type of collateral gives the rights of executorial to creditors to do parate execution on the object of fiduciary collateral when a debtor defaults. In practice, however, collateral misuses this right illegally. This becomes the basics for Judicial Review agains Article 15, paraghraphs 2 and 3 of Law No. 42/1999, and the Constitutional Court issued the Ruling No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Therefore in this thesis the formulation of the problem raised is first, when a debtor is considered to have committed an act of default, and secondly, it delves into the creditor's execution procedure and the ratio decidendi related to Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. The research use descriptive juridicial normative method. The data were gathered by conducting library research. The result of the analysis shows that Ruling does not impede the right of executing by creditors so that it is in accordance with the executorial right in fiduciary collateral. So, there are two possible ways for a debtor to be declared in default: firstly, the agreement of default is stipulated during the main agreement and the initial fiduciary collateral agreement. Secondly, the default is determined by the district court in order to execute the fiduciary collateral object.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bachtiar, M. (2007). Buku ajar hukum perikatan. Pekanbaru: Witra Irzani.

Gautama, S. (1973). Pengertian tentang negara hukum. Yogyakarta: Liberty.

Husen, H. M. (1990). Kejahatan dan penegakan hukum di Indonesia. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Karelina, N., Abubakar, L., & Handayani, T. (2022). Implikasi hukum Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU/XVII/2019 dan penegasannya dalam Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021 terhadap eksekusi jaminan fidusia dan perumusan klausula perjanjian. Acta Diurnal: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum Kenotariatan, 5(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.23920/acta.v5i2.738

Mertokusumo, S. (1986). Mengenal hukum (suatu pengantar). Yogyakarta: Liberty.

Nurmelinda, M. (2021). Perlindungan hukum bagi kreditur dalam perjanjian fidusia. Yustitia, 7(1), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.31943/yustitia.v7i1.128

Republik Indonesia. (1999a). Pasal 15 ayat (1) UU No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia.

Republik Indonesia. (1999b). Pasal 15 ayat (2) UU No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia.

Republik Indonesia. (1999c). Pasal 15 ayat (3) UU No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia.

Republik Indonesia. (1999d). Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia.

Saliman, A. R. (2005). Hukum bisnis untuk perusahaan. Jakarta: Kencana.

Soekanto, S. (2014). Faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhi penegakan hukum (Cet. ke-13). Jakarta: PT RajaGrafindo Persada.

Subekti, R. (2002). Pokok-pokok hukum perdata. Jakarta: Intermasal.

Utrecht, E. (1959). Pengantar dalam hukum Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Buku Ichtiar.

Wiyanto, D. Y. (2015). Hukum jaminan fidusia dalam perjanjian pembiayaan konsumen. Bandung: Mandar Maju.

Downloads

Published

2024-12-31