Implication Juridical Decision of The Constitutional Court No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 Concerning Wanprestasi In the Fiducia Agreement
Published: 15 January 2021
International Journal of Law and Politics Studies , Volume 3, pp 12-21; https://doi.org/10.32996/ijlps.2021.3.1.3
Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to criticize the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019, which determines that the phrases "executorial power" and "are the same as court decisions having permanent legal force" in Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning The Fiduciary Guarantee contradicts the 1945 Constitution. From the norms contained in this article, there is a power of execution that the fiduciary security holder can carry out (creditors), which then causes many problems, both related to the constitutionality of norms and implementation. Thus, the authors question two things, first how is the juridical analysis of the Constitutional Court decision No. 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 regarding breach of contract in the fiduciary agreement? Second, what is the juridical implication of MK Decision No. fiduciary? The writer's research type is library research, a literature study (library research) with a descriptive qualitative research type. The data collection technique used was documentation techniques, and the approach method used in this study was juridical normative. The results of this study conclude that 1) The Constitutional Court's decision has not provided a sense of justice as in Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, because in this Constitutional Court decision gives more exclusive rights to the debtor because in this case, the creditor does not get legal protection rights in the event of undesirable things (2) This decision has implications for various parties, namely the Court, which now often receives requests for execution and the process will be lengthy, for notaries must add and clarify default clauses in detail. For business people whose creditors (fiduciary recipients) cannot carry out unilateral execution of the object of fiduciary security but must submit a request for performance to the Court. There is a concern that lousy faith will occur from the community's debtor when the creditor is submitting a request for execution to the Court.
Keywords: Constitutional Court decision / fiduciary security / Implication Juridical
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
Click here to see the statistics on "International Journal of Law and Politics Studies" .