Rekonstruksi Regulasi Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia Akibat Debitur Wanprestasi Berbasis Nilai Keadilan

Abstract

Execution of Fiduciary guarantee objects is an important issue in line with the growing development of granting credit with Fiduciary guarantees in credit agreements. The execution of Fiduciary guarantee objects is regulated in articles 29 to 34 of Law no. 42 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, wherein the provision stipulates that if a debtor defaults, the execution of the object of Fiduciary guarantees can be carried out in two ways, namely through parate execution and private sales, but in practice, these provisions are difficult to implement properly. Based on these matters, it is necessary to study further when how a creditor can be said to have defaulted or defaulted, how is the process of executing Fiduciary guarantee objects in banking, and what are the obstacles that hinder carrying out the execution process of Fiduciary guarantees.

The research method in writing this dissertation uses a juridical normative method with an explanatory research type, namely by examining and analyzing the relationship between the practice of executing Fiduciary guarantee objects in banking based on regulations related to this matter. In this study, secondary datawas used, where to To obtain secondary data, the data collection tool used was a document study conducted using written data in the form of primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials, and then the data was analyzed qualitatively.

Based on this research, the results show that a debtor can be said to have committed a default if he violates the default clause in the credit agreement and the credit has been included in the category of problem loans, and in the process of executing the Fiduciary guarantee it turns out that it was not carried out based on Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary guarantees, and in the execution process there were many obstacles, both from the debtor himself and due to weaknesses in the law that regulates the process of executing the Fiduciary guarantee.

Regulatory reconstruction of Article 15 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Fiduciary Security Act relating to the execution of Fiduciary guarantees in practice raises the creditor's arbitrariness when collecting, withdrawing Fiduciary collateral objects (movable objects) under the pretext of the debtor in breach of promise. at the time of the breach of promise there was no explanation in Article 15 of the Fiduciary Security Act. In consideration of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUUXVII / 2019 it was explained that the breach of the promise must be made agreed by the parties. If the parties do not have an agreement, then the execution of the execution through a court decision in accordance with HIR and RBg. Thus, the issue of breach of contract in the execution of Fiduciary guarantees is not immediately resolved through the court. However, the parties' agreement must be preceded to determine when the alleged breach of the allegation occurred. If there is an agreement between the parties, the creditor can immediately execute. The Constitutional Court further stated that Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law on the phrase "executive power" and the phrase "equals a court decision that has permanent legal force" is unconstitutional as long as it does not mean Fiduciary guarantees for which there is no breach of agreement (default agreement) and the debtor object to objection voluntarily surrender the object of Fiduciary guarantee, then all the legal mechanisms and procedures for the execution of the execution of the Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate must be carried out and in effect the same as the execution of a court decision that has permanent legal force.

Alternate abstract:

Eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia merupakan masalah yang penting seiring dengan semakin berkembangnya pemberian kredit dengan jaminan fidusia dalam perjanjian kredit. Eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia diatur dalam pasal 29 sampaidengan pasal 34 Undang-undang No. 42 tentang Jaminan Fidusia, dimana dalam ketentuan tersebut diatur apabila seorang debitur melakukan wanprestasi, eksekusi terhadap objek jaminan fidusia dapat dilakukan dengan dua cara yaitu melalui parateeksekusi dan penjualan di bawah tangan, akan tetapi dalam prakteknya, ketentuan tersebut sulit untuk dilaksanakan sebagaimana mestinya. Berdasarkan hal-hal tersebut perlu dikaji lebih lanjut pada saat bagaimana seorang kreditur dapat dikatakan melakukan cidera janji atau wanprestasi, bagaimana proses eksekusiobjek jaminan fidusia pada Pebankkan tersebut, dan kendala-kendala apa saja yang menghambat untuk melakukan proses eksekusi jaminan fidusia tersebut.

Metode penelitian dalam penulisan disertasi ini menggunakan metode normatif yuridis dengan tipe penelitian eksplanatoris yaitu dengan mengkaji dan menganalisis hubungan antara praktek eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia pada Pebankkan dengan didasarkan kepada peraturan-peraturan yang berkaitan dengan hal tersebut, dalam penelitian ini, digunakan data sekunder, dimana untuk memperoleh data sekunder tersebut maka alat pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah studi dokumen yang dilakukan dengan data tertulis baik berupa bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tertier, untuk kemudian data tersebut dianalisis secara kwalitatif.

Berdasarkan penelitian tersebut diperoleh hasil bahwa suatu debitur dapat dikatakan telah melakukan wanprestasi adalah jika melanggar klausula cidera janji dalam perjanjian kredit dan kredit tersebut telah masuk dalam kategori kredit bermasalah, dan dalam proses eksekusi jaminan fidusia ternyata tidak dilaksanakan berdasarkan Undang-Undang No. 34 tahun 1999 tentang jaminan fidusia, sertadalam proses eksekusi tersebut banyak terjadi hambatan--hambatan baik dari debitur itu sendiri ataupun karena kelemahan-kelemahan dalam Undang-Undang yang mengatur proses eksekusi jaminan \ fidusia tersebut.

Rekontruksi regulasi Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-undang Jaminan Fidusia terkait eksekusi jaminan fidusia dalam praktiknya menimbulkan kesewenangwenangan kreditur ketika menagih, menarik objek jaminan fidusia (benda bergerak) dengan dalih debitur cidera janji. waktu terjadinya cidera janji tersebut tidak ada penjelasan dalam Pasal 15 Undang-undang Jaminan Fidusia itu, Dalam pertimbangan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dijelaskan, bahwa cidera janji harus dibuat dan disepakati para pihak. Kalau para pihak tidak ada kesepakatan, maka pelaksanaan eksekusi melalui putusanpengadilan sesuai HIR dan RBg .Dengan demikian, persoalan cidera janji dalam eksekusi jaminan fidusia tidak langsung diselesaikan melalui pengadilan. Namun, harus didahului kesepakatan para pihak untuk menentukan kapan terjadinya tuduhan cidera janji tersebut. Jika sudah ada kesepakatan para pihak, kreditur dapat langsung mengeksekusi. Lebih lanjut Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan Pasal 15 ayat (2) UU Jaminan Fidusia frasa “kekuatan eksekutorial” dan frasa “sama dengan putusan pengadilan yang berkekuatan hukum tetap” inkonstitusional sepanjang tidakdimaknai (wanprestasi) dan debitur keberatan menyerahkan secara sukarela objek jaminan fidusia, maka segala mekanisme dan prosedur hukum pelaksanaan eksekusi Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia harus dilakukan dan berlaku sama dengan pelaksanaan eksekusi putusan pengadilan yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap.