PENAFSIRAN CIDERA JANJI OLEH MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI TERKAIT EKSEKUSI JAMINAN FIDUSIA DAN IMPLIKASINYA

Published: .
Open Access
Citation Format:
Abstract

Application for testing Article 15 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of Law No. 42 of 1999 has been decided by Constitutional Court on January 6, 2020. The purpose of this study is to find out how the interpretation of Constitutional Court on meaning of "default" related to fiducia security execution and what implications are. This research used normative legal research method. The results showed that Constitutional Court interpreted: first, the existence of "default" was not determined unilaterally by creditor, but on the basis of an agreement between creditor and debtor. Second, for fiduciary security objects for which there is no agreement "default", then all legal mechanisms in execution apply as same as implementation of a court decision with permanent legal force. The implication: first, the meaning of "default" must be agreed by both parties. Second, if debtor refuses execution, then creditor must file a lawsuit in court. Third, the potential for widespread testing of Mortgage Law. Fourth, the court will be far more active and creditor will incur more expensive fees. Fifth, there will be potential debtor who deliberately gain time through a lawsuit in court. In addition to juridical implications, this can also have implications for economic sector.

 

Keywords:  constitutional court; default; fiducia security.

 

Abstrak

Permohonan pengujian Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-undang No 42 Tahun 1999 telah diputus Mahkamah Konstitusi pada tanggal 6 Januari 2020. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah mengetahui bagaimana penafsiran Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap pemaknaan “cidera janji” terkait eksekusi jaminan fidusia dan apa implikasinya. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa Mahkamah Konstitusi menafsirkan: pertama, adanya “cidera janji” tidak ditentukan secara sepihak oleh kreditur, melainkan atas dasar kesepakatan antara kreditur dengan debitur. Kedua, terhadap objek jaminan fidusia yang tidak ada kesepakatan “cidera janji”, maka segala mekanisme hukum dalam eksekusi berlaku sama dengan pelaksanaan putusan pengadilan berkekuatan hukum tetap. Implikasinya: pertama, pemaknaan ‘cidera janji’ harus disepakati kedua belah pihak. Kedua, jika debitur menolak eksekusi, maka kreditur harus melakukan gugatan ke pengadilan. Ketiga, potensi meluasnya pengujian terhadap UU Hak Tanggungan. Keempat, pengadilan akan jauh lebih aktif dan kreditur akan mengeluarkan biaya yang lebih mahal. Kelima, akan ada potensi debitur yang sengaja mengulur waktu melalui gugatan di pengadilan. Selain implikasi yuridis, hal tersebut dapat juga berimplikasi pada sektor perekonomian.

 

Kata kunci: putusan mahkamah konstitusi; cidera janji; jaminan fidusia.

Article Metrics:

Last update: 2021-04-16 23:43:34

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2021-04-16 23:43:34

No citation recorded.