JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF LAW NO. 42/1999 WITH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NO. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 ON MOTOR VEHICLE WITHDRAWAL BY DEFAULTING DEBTORS
Universitas Bhayangkara Surabaya
Universitas Bhayangkara Surabaya
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56943/jlte.v3i2.553Motor vehicles are often confiscated by people who do not repay debts, and are occasionally subjected to violence or threats from debt collectors. Meanwhile, Law No. 42/1999 Article 15 stipulates that the withdrawal can be self executed. However, Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 states that execution must go through the courts, which leads to differences in interpretations. Some interpreted the withdrawal to require a judicial process, while others argued that it could be done on their own, which led to forced withdrawals by debt collectors. Therefore, this research is conducted to analyze the juridical implications of Law No. 42/1999 on Fiduciary Guarantee regarding the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, which specifically discusses motor vehicle withdrawals by creditors against defaulting debtors. A normative juridical approach with qualitative analysis was chosen to obtain an in-depth and accurate understanding of the legal issues discussed. The approaches used in this research are statute approach and case approach. The result of this research is in Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the Constitutional Court reviewed and reinterpreted Article 15 Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 42/1999 on Fiduciary Guarantee. The Court found that the law allowed for arbitrary actions by creditors, causing injustice to debtors. The decision mandated that the execution of collateral, such as the withdrawal of a motor vehicle, must be done through a District Court decision rather than unilaterally by the creditor.
Keywords: Debtor Default Unilateral Execution Vehicles Withdrawal
Bouzen, Robert, and Ashibly Ashibly. “Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia Terhadap Debitur Yang Wanprestasi Setelah Keluarnya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019.” Jurnal Gagasan Hukum 3, no. 2 (2021): 137–148.
Budi Setianingrum, Reni. “Mekanisme Penentuan Nilai Appraisal Dan Pengikatan Hak Cipta Sebagai Objek Jaminan Fidusia.” Jurnal Media Hukum 23, no. 2 (2017). http://journal.umy.ac.id/index.php/jmh/article/view/1998.
Handayani, Prika, and Teddy Asmara. “Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Debt Collector Yang Melakukan Tindak Pidana Perampasan Dalam Kredit Bermasalah.” Hukum Responsif 10, no. 2 (2019): 55–66.
Indonesia, Pemerintah Pusat. Undang-Undang (UU) Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Jakarta, 1999.
Ramadhanneswari, Shavira, and Hendro Saptono R. Suharto. “Penarikan Kendaraan Bermotor Oleh Perusahaan Pembiayaan Terhadap Debitur Yang Mengalami Kredit Macet (Wanprestasi) Dengan Jaminan Fidusia Ditinjau Dari Aspek Yuridis.” Diponegoro Law Journal 6, no. 2 (2017): 1–14.
Sanjaya, Dicky Bagus, and Tamsil. “Analisis Yuridis Terhadap Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi 2/PUU-XIX/2021 Bagi Penerima Jaminan Fidusia (Kreditur).” Jurnal Novum (2022).
Siombo, Marhaeni Ria. Lembaga Pembiayaan Dalam Perspektif Hukum. Jakarta: Universitas Katolik Indonesia Atma Jaya, 2019.
Soekanto, Soerjono, and Sri Mamudji. Penelitian Hukum Normatif: Suatu Tinjauan Singkat. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, 2015.
Sushanty, Vera Rimbawani. “Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Debt Collector Dan Leasing Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019.” Gorontalo Law Review 3, no. 1 (April 30, 2020): 59. http://jurnal.unigo.ac.id/index.php/golrev/article/view/896.
Usman, Rachmadi. Hukum Jaminan Keperdataan. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika, 2008.
———. “Makna Pengalihan Hak Kepemilikan Benda Objek Jaminan Fidusia Atas Dasar Kepercayaan.” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 28, no. 1 (January 1, 2021). https://journal.uii.ac.id/IUSTUM/article/view/16161.
Vonny, Sri Elmi. “Eksekusi Jaminan Fisusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021 (Studi Pada PT Pegadaian Cabang Tarandam Kota Padang.” Universitas Andalas, 2022.
Yahman, Dr. Cara Mudah Memahami Wanprestasi & Penipuan Dalam Hubungan Kontrak Komersial. Kencana, 2019.
———. Karakteristik Wanprestasi & Tindak Pidana Penipuan Yang Lahir Dari Hubungan Kontraktual. Kencana, 2014.
