Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Pasal 15 Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia dilakukan uji materiil oleh MK dan MK menetapkan Putusan MK Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 kemudian dikuatkan lagi dengan Putusan MK Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021. Kedua putusan ini, menjadi dasar hukum eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia di Indonesia. Adanya Putusan MK tersebut, dapat menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum baik terhadap kreditur maupun debitur. Ketidakpastian hukum tersebut terkait dengan eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia secara sah di Indonesia.

Tujuan skripsi ini adalah, untuk menjelaskan eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia yang dikategorikan tidak sah di Indonesia, perlindungan hukum terhadap debitur dalam eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia di Indonesia, dan penyelesaian eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia di Indonesia.

Metode penelitian skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif. Penelitian ini memperoleh data dengan studi kepustakaan serta studi lapangan melalui wawancara dengan narasumber sebagai data pendukung.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa, eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia dikatakan tidak sah jika tidak adanya pernyataan wanprestasi dari debitur dan debitur tidak menyerahkan secara sukarela objek jaminan fidusia tersebut sesuai dengan Putusan MK Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021. Debitur yang menjadi korban eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia secara tidak sah dapat diberikan perlindungan hukum preventif sesuai Putusan MK Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021 bahwa eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia dapat dilakukan jika debitur terbukti dan mengakui adanya wanprestasi, serta debitur juga mendapatkan perlindungan represif, di mana debitur dapat menggugat kreditur ke pengadilan negeri. Eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia secara sah harus dilakukan melalui penetapan pengadilan negeri mengacu pada Putusan MK Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021.

Dari hasil penelitian disarankan, kepada kreditur untuk menerapkan eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia yang mengacu pada Putusan MK. Pengadilan Negeri disarankan untuk menindak dengan tegas pelaku eksekusi objek jaminan secara paksa dan memberikan perlindungan terhadap debitur selaku pihak yang dirugikan. Serta, eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia harus dilakukan melalui pengadilan negeri agar tetap terjaga keamanan dan keadilan bagi para pihak.

Article 15 of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Security was subjected to judicial review by the Constitutional Court, which subsequently issued Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, later reaffirmed by Constitutional Court Decision Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021. These two decisions constitute the legal basis for the execution of fiduciary security objects in Indonesia. The Constitutional Court’s rulings, however, may give rise to legal uncertainty for both creditors and debtors, particularly concerning the lawful execution of fiduciary security objects in Indonesia. The objective of this thesis is to explain the circumstances under which the execution of fiduciary security objects is considered unlawful in Indonesia, the legal protection afforded to debtors in the execution of fiduciary security objects, and the mechanisms for resolving disputes arising from such execution. This thesis employs a normative juridical research method. Data were obtained through literature study and field research, including interviews with relevant sources to support the analysis. The research findings indicate that the execution of a fiduciary security object is deemed unlawful when there is no declaration of default (wanprestasi) by the debtor and when the debtor does not voluntarily surrender the fiduciary security object, in accordance with Constitutional Court Decision Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021. Debtors who become victims of unlawful execution of fiduciary security objects may obtain preventive legal protection pursuant to Constitutional Court Decision Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021, which stipulates that execution may only be carried out when the debtor is proven to be in default and acknowledges such default. Debtors are also entitled to repressive legal protection, whereby they may file a lawsuit against the creditor in the district court. A lawful execution of a fiduciary security object must be conducted through a district court order, as mandated by Constitutional Court Decision Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021. Based on the research findings, it is recommended that creditors execute fiduciary security objects in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s decisions. It is further recommended that district courts take firm action against parties who conduct forced or unlawful executions and provide adequate protection to debtors as the aggrieved parties. Additionally, execution of fiduciary security objects should be carried out through the district court to ensure security and fairness for all parties involved.