TITEL EKSEKUTORIAL JAMINAN FIDUSIA PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PUU XVII-2019 DALAM PERSPEKTIF KEPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI KREDITOR

Untung, Ellyas Eko (2026) TITEL EKSEKUTORIAL JAMINAN FIDUSIA PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PUU XVII-2019 DALAM PERSPEKTIF KEPASTIAN HUKUM BAGI KREDITOR. S2 thesis, Universitas Kristen Indonesia.

Preview	Text (Hal_Judul_Daftar_Isi_Abstrak) HalJudulDaftarIsiAbstrak.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (822kB) | Preview
Preview	Text (BAB_I) BABI.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (160kB) | Preview
	Text (BAB_II) BABII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (351kB)
	Text (BAB_III) BABIII.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (335kB)
	Text (BAB_IV) BABIV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (249kB)
	Text (BAB_V) BABV.pdf Restricted to Registered users only Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (159kB)
Preview	Text (Daftar_Pustaka) DaftarPustaka.pdf Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike. Download (46kB) | Preview

Abstract

Jaminan fidusia menempatkan hak eksekutorial sebagai inti kepastian hukum bagi kreditor, karena melalui hak tersebut kreditor dapat mengeksekusi objek jaminan secara langsung apabila debitur cidera janji. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 mengubah lanskap normatif tersebut dengan menafsirkan ulang ketentuan Pasal 15 Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999, sehingga pelaksanaan eksekusi tidak lagi dapat dilakukan secara sepihak ketika tidak terdapat kesepakatan mengenai cidera janji. Penelitian ini menelaah dua persoalan pokok, yaitu bagaimana pelaksanaan hak eksekutorial jaminan fidusia berdasarkan undang-undang tersebut setelah adanya putusan dimaksud, serta bagaimana pengaturan pelaksanaan eksekusi perlu disinkronkan agar kepastian hukum bagi kreditor tetap terjaga. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan konseptual. Bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier dikumpulkan melalui studi kepustakaan, kemudian dianalisis secara kualitatif menggunakan interpretasi gramatikal, sistematis, dan teleologis. Analisis tersebut diarahkan untuk mengidentifikasi hubungan antara rumusan undang-undang dan penafsiran konstitusional Mahkamah Konstitusi, sekaligus menilai implikasinya terhadap kedudukan kreditor dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa putusan tersebut tidak menghapus hak eksekutorial kreditor, melainkan membatasi pelaksanaannya agar tidak dijalankan secara sepihak apabila debitur tidak mengakui cidera janji atau tidak menyerahkan objek jaminan secara sukarela. Pembatasan ini menimbulkan disharmoni normatif antara rumusan Pasal 15 Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia dan penafsiran konstitusional yang menjadikan prosedur eksekusi kehilangan kepastian operasionalnya. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan perlunya sinkronisasi pengaturan melalui penyempurnaan undang-undang, pembentukan aturan pelaksana yang lebih operasional, serta penyeragaman prosedur eksekusi melalui pengadilan negeri, sebagai upaya menjaga keseimbangan antara perlindungan hukum bagi debitur dan kepastian hukum bagi kreditor/Fiduciary security places the executorial right at the core of legal certainty for creditors, since this right enables a creditor to execute the collateral object directly when the debtor defaults. Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 reshaped that normative landscape by reinterpreting Article 15 of Law Number 42 of 1999, so that execution may no longer be carried out unilaterally where there is no agreement regarding the occurrence of default. This research addresses two principal issues, namely how the executorial right of fiduciary security is implemented under the law following the decision, and how the regulation of execution should be synchronized so that legal certainty for creditors is preserved. This research applies a normative legal research method using statutory and conceptual approaches. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials were collected through literature study and subsequently analyzed qualitatively using grammatical, systematic, and teleological interpretation. The analysis was directed toward identifying the relationship between the statutory formulation and the constitutional interpretation rendered by the Constitutional Court, while also assessing its implications for the position of creditors in carrying out execution. The findings indicate that the decision does not abolish the creditor’s executorial right, but rather limits its implementation so that execution cannot be conducted unilaterally when the debtor does not acknowledge default or does not voluntarily surrender the collateral object. This limitation creates normative disharmony between the formulation of Article 15 of the Fiduciary Security Law and the constitutional interpretation, leaving the execution procedure without operational certainty. The research concludes that regulatory synchronization is necessary through the amendment of the law, the formulation of more operational implementing regulations, and the standardization of execution procedures through the district court, as an effort to maintain a balance between legal protection for debtors and legal certainty for creditors.

Actions (login required)

View Item