CD Tesis

Kekuatan Hukum Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII-2019 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia

---

Fiduciary is one of the special guarantees of material that gives special rights to the recipient of the guarantee, including the right of creditors to sell their own collateral items without having to have a court decision or called a parate executie in the event of default. Not long ago, the Constitutional Court ruled in a judicial review case in Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The article petitioned for trial in the case is Article 15 paragraph (2) and (3) of the Fiduciary Guarantee Act which regulates the executive power of fiduciary certificates and execution parate. This paper discusses the legal power of fiduciary guarantees after the Constitutional Court ruling Number 18 / PUU-XVII-2019 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. The research method is normative legal research, also called doctrinal law research. In this normative legal research, the author is interested in conducting research using the criteria of the level of legal synchronization, the researcher collects data consisting of primary data. The data collection technique is literature study. Data analysis was carried out qualitatively and drawing conclusions from the author using deductive thinking methods.
The conclusion of this study is the strength of the fiduciary guarantee law after the decision of the Constitutional Court Number 18 of 2019 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee as evidenced in the letter "b", then the execution of fiduciary collateral is through auctions. This is also confirmed by the provision of Article 6 of the Minister of Finance Regulation No. 27 / PMK.06 / 2016 concerning Bid Implementation Guidelines (PMK 27/2016) which categorizes Fiduciary Execution Guarantee Auctions as one of the types of Execution Auctions, and as it is known that the implementation of types Execution Auction can only be done by Class I Auction Officers which incidentally only exists at the KPKNL. Then it can be understood that the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 18 Year 2019 will more or less have implications for the Auction business process conducted by the KPKNL. This is because Article 15 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Fiduciary Law, according to the Constitutional Court Decree Number 18 of 2019, are fundamental norms. Because, from the norm contained in the article, it is issued the power of execution that can be carried out by the Fiduciary Guarantee Holder (creditor) which then causes many problems, both related to the constitutionality of the norms and the implementation that governs the execution of fiduciary collateral. Ideally the execution of fiduciary collateral items is through an auction whose implementation can only be carried out by the KPKNL. Execution of fiduciary guarantees should not take too long in the case process in a district court. Or through a public auction is not too expensive or auction office
xiii
services. If the collateral value of fiduciary collateral is small or comparable to the sale value and processing costs through public auctions and litigations in court. So that the fiduciary and nfiduciary recipients do not experience huge losses because the costs are very expensive. It is necessary to divert fiduciary collateral objects. Fiduciary collateral for vehicles, the Traffic Police must promote fiduciary recipients to report fiduciary collateral items for vehicles, so that during raids on the road found collateral vehicles not in the hands of the rightful.
The author's suggestion is that there should be supervision by the fiduciary recipient of the fiduciary collateral controlled by the debtor. So that the weaknesses in the implementation of legal protection for creditors in a peace agreement, among others, are caused either by regulations that provide a weak position for creditors such as the lack of firmness in execution regarding the execution of the execution, even though the object of fiduciary 79 guarantees moving objects whose movements are very fast so vulnerable embezzlement other than that often in a fiduciary agreement there is no confirmation. It should be discussed or discussed about the formation of an executing agency for a fiduciary guarantee agreement, bearing in mind that fiduciary is a guarantee institution for movable objects whose physical control is by the fiduciary giver, so that it is logically prone to change hands. As well as the need for legal awareness and socialization regarding the implementation of fiduciary so that the weaknesses contained in the Fiduciary Security Act can be minimized in a fiduciary agreement, for example by forming an agreement on supervision of fiduciary objects.
Keywords: Fiduciary Guarantee, Post Constitutional Court Ruling Number 18 / Puu-Xvii-2019 Regarding Fiduciary Guarantee.

---

Ketersediaan

Informasi Detail

Judul Seri

-

No. Panggil

10 14. 220 (0022)

Penerbit

Pekanbaru : Universitas Riau – Pascasarjana – Tesis Ilmu Hukum., 2020

Deskripsi Fisik

xii, 143 hlm,; ill.: 29 cm

Bahasa

Indonesia

ISBN/ISSN

-

Klasifikasi

10 14. 220 (0022)

Tipe Isi

-

Tipe Media

-

Tipe Pembawa

-

Edisi

-

Subjek

ILMU HUKUM

Info Detail Spesifik

-

Pernyataan Tanggungjawab

FATAH

Versi lain/terkait

Lampiran Berkas

Komentar

---

Anda harus masuk sebelum memberikan komentar