Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Kreditur Selaku Penerima Jaminan Fidusia Pasca Dikeluarkannya Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019

Suharyadi Suharyadi

Abstract


This study aimed to analyze the juridical implications, the urgency of the new concept of default, losses suffered by creditors, and legal protection for creditors after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. This study used a normative juridical method with a case and legislation approach. The juridical implication of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 was the non-fulfillment of the element of legal certainty due to differences in the concept of default in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 with the provisions of Article 1243 of the Civil Code. The urgency of the new concept of default in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 was to provide legal protection for debtors when a default is declared unilaterally by the creditor. Losses experienced by creditors were categorized into cost losses, losses on damaged goods, and losses on profits that should be obtained. Legal protection for creditors was carried out in a preventive and repressive manner.This study aimed to analyze the juridical implications, the urgency of the new concept of default, losses suffered by creditors, and legal protection for creditors after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. This study used a normative juridical method with a case and legislation approach. The juridical implication of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 was the non-fulfillment of the element of legal certainty due to differences in the concept of default in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 with the provisions of Article 1243 of the Civil Code. The urgency of the new concept of default in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 was to provide legal protection for debtors when a default is declared unilaterally by the creditor. Losses experienced by creditors were categorized into cost losses, losses on damaged goods, and losses on profits that should be obtained. Legal protection for creditors was carried out in a preventive and repressive manner.

Keywords


legal protection, creditors, fiduciary guarantee

Full Text:

PDF

References


Abdullah, J. (2016). Jaminan Fidusia di Indonesia (Tata Cara Pendaftaran dan Eksekusi). Jurnal Bisnis dan Manajemen Islam, 4(2), 115-132.

Butаrbutаr, E. N. (2009). Konsep Keаdilаn dаlаm Sistem Perаdilаn Perdаtа. Mimbаr Hukum, 21(2), 355-369.

Carakata, S. P., & Budhisulistyawati, A. (2019). Perlindungan Hukum bagi Kreditur terhadap Objek Jaminan Fidusia yang Tidak Didaftarkan pada Kantor Pendaftaran Fidusia (Studi di Kementerian Hukum dan HAM Kantor Wilayah DIY). Jurnal Privat Law, 7(2), 295-300.

Friedmаnn, W. (1960). Legаl Theory. London: Stevens аnd Son Limited.

Fuady, M. (2003). Jaminan Fidusia. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.

Fuаdy, M. (2006). Hukum tentаng Pembiаyааn. Bandung: Citrа Аdityа Bаkti.

Heriawanto, B. K. (2019). Pelaksanaan Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia Berdasarkan Title Eksekutorial. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum, 27(1), 54-67.

Kamelo, T. (2004). Hukum Jaminan Fidusia. Bandung: Alumni.

Nurcahyanti, I. I., & Sukarmi. (2021). Perlindungan Hukum bagi Kreditur Penerima Fidusia Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan, 6(2), 489-502.

Nusantara, N. P. T. P. (2018). Eksekusi dan Pendaftaran Objek Jaminan Fidusia Berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kertha Semaya, 2(2), 1-15.

Permadi, I. (2016). Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Pembeli Tanah Bersertifikat Ganda dengan Cara Itikad Baik demi Kepastian Hukum. Yustisia, 5(2), 448-467.

Permadi, I. (2016). Perlindungan Hukum terhadap Petani Penggarap Tanah Negara Milik Perum Perhutani. Arena Hukum, 9(2), 225-251.

Prawani, N. K. C., & Ariani, N. M. (2017). Perlindungan Hukum Leassor terhadap Obyek Leasing apabila Lessse Wanprestasi. Jurnal Fakultas Hukum Universitas Udayana, Denpasar, 6(6), 1-15.

Rаhаrdjo, S. (2000). Ilmu Hukum. Bandung: Citrа Аdityа Bаkti.

Rаwls, J. (1971). А Theory of Justice. Mаsаcusetts: Hаrvаrd University Press.

Republik Indonesia. (1999). Undаng-Undаng Nomor 42 Tаhun 1999 tentаng Jаminаn Fidusiа. Lembаrаn Negаrа Republik Indonesiа Tаhun 1999 Nomor 168. Tаmbаhаn Lembаrаn Negаrа Republik Indonesiа Nomor 3889.

Salim, H. S. (2012). Perkembangan Hukum Jaminan di Indonesia. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.

Slamet, S. R. (2013). Tuntutan Ganti Rugi dalam Perbuatan Melawan Hukum: Suatu Perbandingan dengan Wanprestasi. Lex Jurnalica, 10(2), 107-120.

Sofwan, S. S. M. (1980). Hukum Jaminan di Indonesia Pokok-Pokok Hukum Jaminan dan Jaminan Perorangan. Yogyakarta: Liberty.

Sularto. (2012). Perlindungan Hukum Kreditur Separatis dalam Kepailitan. Mimbar Hukum, 24(2), 241-253.

Usman, R. (2011). Hukum Kebendaan. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Winarno, J. (2013). Perlindungan Hukum bagi Kreditur pada Perjanjian Jaminan Fidusia. Jurnal Independent, 1(1), 44-55.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17977/um019v7i1p228-237

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Bookmark and Share


Copyright (c) 2022 Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Pancasila dan Kewarganegaraan

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

google.pngipiii.pnggoogle.png

View My Stats