Kekuatan Eksekutorial Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019

A fiduciary guarantee agreement is a formal agreement that must be stated in a notarial deed as regulated in Article 4 of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law. This provision states that a fiduciary guarantee is a subsidiary agreement of the main agreement that creates an obligation for the parties to fulfill a performance. Execution, in this context, is a legal action carried out based on a legally binding decision. Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Fiduciary Law explains that the executorial power of a fiduciary guarantee certificate allows for direct implementation without going through a court, is final, and binds the parties. This research uses an empirical normative method, namely combining library studies with field research. Primary data was obtained through interviews with Judges of the Yogyakarta District Court, Judges of the Sleman District Court, the Yogyakarta State Assets and Auction Service Office (KPKNL), and the Yogyakarta Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. Secondary data comes from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The analysis was conducted qualitatively. The research results indicate that following Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the execution of fiduciary collateral objects can no longer be carried out unilaterally by creditors, but must instead be filed through the District Court. This provision balances the legal standing between debtors and creditors and prevents potential arbitrariness. Nevertheless, execution through the courts is an alternative if there is no agreement between the parties regarding a default. The court's role following the Constitutional Court decision includes resolving disputes between creditors and debtors and ensuring that execution procedures are carried out in accordance with the HIR (Regional Regulations for the Protection of Creditors), RBG (Regional Regulations for the Protection of Creditors), and the Supreme Court's technical instructions. In general, the execution mechanism through the courts is considered quite effective in ensuring legal protection for both parties.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Konsensus Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan Hukum dan Ilmu Komunikasi
Published
2025-08-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.62383/konsensus.v2i4.1161
Primary Topic
Legal Studies and Policies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Kekuatan Eksekutorial Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019

Kintannia Khairunnissa Indriyanti
Konsensus Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan Hukum dan Ilmu Komunikasi
Legal Studies and Policies
article

Kekuatan Eksekutorial Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019

Kintannia Khairunnissa Indriyanti
article en

Abstract

A fiduciary guarantee agreement is a formal agreement that must be stated in a notarial deed as regulated in Article 4 of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law. This provision states that a fiduciary guarantee is a subsidiary agreement of the main agreement that creates an obligation for the parties to fulfill a performance. Execution, in this context, is a legal action carried out based on a legally binding decision. Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Fiduciary Law explains that the executorial power of a fiduciary guarantee certificate allows for direct implementation without going through a court, is final, and binds the parties. This research uses an empirical normative method, namely combining library studies with field research. Primary data was obtained through interviews with Judges of the Yogyakarta District Court, Judges of the Sleman District Court, the Yogyakarta State Assets and Auction Service Office (KPKNL), and the Yogyakarta Regional Office of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. Secondary data comes from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. The analysis was conducted qualitatively. The research results indicate that following Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the execution of fiduciary collateral objects can no longer be carried out unilaterally by creditors, but must instead be filed through the District Court. This provision balances the legal standing between debtors and creditors and prevents potential arbitrariness. Nevertheless, execution through the courts is an alternative if there is no agreement between the parties regarding a default. The court's role following the Constitutional Court decision includes resolving disputes between creditors and debtors and ensuring that execution procedures are carried out in accordance with the HIR (Regional Regulations for the Protection of Creditors), RBG (Regional Regulations for the Protection of Creditors), and the Supreme Court's technical instructions. In general, the execution mechanism through the courts is considered quite effective in ensuring legal protection for both parties.

Konsensus Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan Hukum dan Ilmu KomunikasiVol. 2(4)
Islamic University of Indonesia (ID)
Openalex Percentile: Top 66%
Legal Studies and Policies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Kekuatan Eksekutorial Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 — Kintannia Khairunnissa Indriyanti · Konsensus Jurnal Ilmu Pertahanan Hukum dan Ilmu Komunikasi (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS