Rekonstruksi Pengaturan Eksekusi Obyek Jaminan Fidusia Yang Berkeadilan
Total View This Week0
Total View This Week0
Institusion
Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Semarang
Author
Murianto, Agus
Subject
K Law (General)
Datestamp
2024-06-08 05:10:54
Abstract :
Jaminan Fidusia sebagai mana diatur dalam No.42 tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia (UUJF), pelaksanaan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia telah diatur didalam pasal 15 ayat 2 dan ayat 3 UUJF, terhadap eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia yang dilakukan Kreditur dengan melibatkan pihak ketiga (debt collector) dalam eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia tersebut sangat mencederai debitur (masyarakat) dalam memperoleh keseimbangan dan keadilan hukum, penarikan paksa tersebut bertentangan dengan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah: (1) bagaimana pengaturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia saat ini?(2) Mengapa eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia belum berkeadilan? (3) Bagaimana rekonstruksi pengaturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia yang berkeadilan? Metode penelitian ini menggunakan yuridis normatif empiris dengan data sekunder yang didukung data primer dengan pendekatan koseptual, pendekatan undang ? undang, pendekatan kasus, Study komparatif. Hasil penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa (1) Pengaturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia saat ini mendasarkan pada Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia terkait eksekusi jaminan fidusia (2) Peraturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia belum berkeadilan karena pihak kreditor melalui pihak ketiga (debt collector) melakukan penarikan objek jaminan fidusia bertentangan dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 yang diperkuat dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 71/PUU-XIX/2021dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021; (3) Rekonstruksi pengaturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia yang berkeadilan harus dilakukan melalui upaya mediasi oleh mediator non hakim. Apabila mediasi berhasil, mediator akan membuat hasil kesepakatan ke dalam akta perdamian, namun apabila gagal, maka pihak yang merasa dirugikan akan mengajukan gugatan. Selain itu, masih ada upaya lain yang bisa dilakukan kreditur dengan memberi kewajiban debitor untuk menghindari eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia, yaitu dengan mengasuransikan kendaraan tersebut secara all risk. Kata Kunci: Rekonstruksi; Eksekusi; Jaminan Fidusia; Keadilan ============================================================ Fiduciary Guarantee as regulated in No.42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee (UUJF), the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects has been regulated in article 15 paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of the UUJF, against the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects carried out by creditors by involving third parties (debt collectors) in the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects is very injurious to debtors (the public) in obtaining legal balance and justice, the forced withdrawal is contrary to the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. The problems in this study are: (1) how is the current arrangement for the execution of fiduciary security objects? (2) Why is the execution of fiduciary security objects not yet fair? (3) How is the reconstruction of fair fiduciary security object execution arrangements? This research method uses normative empirical juridical with secondary data supported by primary data with a conceptual approach, law approach, case approach, and comparative study. The results of this study found that (1) The current regulation of the execution of fiduciary security objects is based on Article 15 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law related to the execution of fiduciary guarantees (2) The regulation of the execution of fiduciary security objects has not been fair because the creditor through a third party (debt collector) withdraws the fiduciary security object contrary to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 which is contrary to the Constitutional Court Decision. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 which is strengthened by Constitutional Court Decision No. 71/PUU-XIX/2021 and Constitutional Court Decision No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021; (3) The reconstruction of fair fiduciary security object execution regulations must be carried out through mediation efforts by non-judge mediators. If the mediation is successful, the mediator will make the result of the agreement into a deed of peace, but if it fails, the aggrieved party will file a lawsuit. In addition, there are still other efforts that can be made by the creditor by giving the debtor an obligation to avoid the execution of the fiduciary security object, namely by insuring the vehicle on an all-risk basis. Keywords: Reconstruction; Execution; Fiduciary Guarantee; Justice
Jaminan Fidusia sebagai mana diatur dalam No.42 tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia (UUJF), pelaksanaan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia telah diatur didalam pasal 15 ayat 2 dan ayat 3 UUJF, terhadap eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia yang dilakukan Kreditur dengan melibatkan pihak ketiga (debt collector) dalam eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia tersebut sangat mencederai debitur (masyarakat) dalam memperoleh keseimbangan dan keadilan hukum, penarikan paksa tersebut bertentangan dengan putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah: (1) bagaimana pengaturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia saat ini?(2) Mengapa eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia belum berkeadilan? (3) Bagaimana rekonstruksi pengaturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia yang berkeadilan? Metode penelitian ini menggunakan yuridis normatif empiris dengan data sekunder yang didukung data primer dengan pendekatan koseptual, pendekatan undang ? undang, pendekatan kasus, Study komparatif. Hasil penelitian ini ditemukan bahwa (1) Pengaturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia saat ini mendasarkan pada Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia terkait eksekusi jaminan fidusia (2) Peraturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia belum berkeadilan karena pihak kreditor melalui pihak ketiga (debt collector) melakukan penarikan objek jaminan fidusia bertentangan dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 yang diperkuat dengan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 71/PUU-XIX/2021dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021; (3) Rekonstruksi pengaturan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia yang berkeadilan harus dilakukan melalui upaya mediasi oleh mediator non hakim. Apabila mediasi berhasil, mediator akan membuat hasil kesepakatan ke dalam akta perdamian, namun apabila gagal, maka pihak yang merasa dirugikan akan mengajukan gugatan. Selain itu, masih ada upaya lain yang bisa dilakukan kreditur dengan memberi kewajiban debitor untuk menghindari eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia, yaitu dengan mengasuransikan kendaraan tersebut secara all risk. Kata Kunci: Rekonstruksi; Eksekusi; Jaminan Fidusia; Keadilan ============================================================ Fiduciary Guarantee as regulated in No.42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee (UUJF), the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects has been regulated in article 15 paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of the UUJF, against the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects carried out by creditors by involving third parties (debt collectors) in the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects is very injurious to debtors (the public) in obtaining legal balance and justice, the forced withdrawal is contrary to the decision of the Constitutional Court No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. The problems in this study are: (1) how is the current arrangement for the execution of fiduciary security objects? (2) Why is the execution of fiduciary security objects not yet fair? (3) How is the reconstruction of fair fiduciary security object execution arrangements? This research method uses normative empirical juridical with secondary data supported by primary data with a conceptual approach, law approach, case approach, and comparative study. The results of this study found that (1) The current regulation of the execution of fiduciary security objects is based on Article 15 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law related to the execution of fiduciary guarantees (2) The regulation of the execution of fiduciary security objects has not been fair because the creditor through a third party (debt collector) withdraws the fiduciary security object contrary to the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 which is contrary to the Constitutional Court Decision. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 which is strengthened by Constitutional Court Decision No. 71/PUU-XIX/2021 and Constitutional Court Decision No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021; (3) The reconstruction of fair fiduciary security object execution regulations must be carried out through mediation efforts by non-judge mediators. If the mediation is successful, the mediator will make the result of the agreement into a deed of peace, but if it fails, the aggrieved party will file a lawsuit. In addition, there are still other efforts that can be made by the creditor by giving the debtor an obligation to avoid the execution of the fiduciary security object, namely by insuring the vehicle on an all-risk basis. Keywords: Reconstruction; Execution; Fiduciary Guarantee; Justice
Download
book
BibTex
Latex, Jabref
cloud_download
Original Resource
url resource Institution
