LEGAL PROTECTION OF THE PARTIES IN CREDIT AGREEMENT WITH FIDUCIARY GUARANTEE AFTER THE ISSUENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019

Celina Tri Siwi Kristiyanti
{"title":"LEGAL PROTECTION OF THE PARTIES IN CREDIT AGREEMENT WITH FIDUCIARY GUARANTEE AFTER THE ISSUENCE OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019","authors":"Celina Tri Siwi Kristiyanti","doi":"10.22225/jn.6.2.2021.65-77","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Fiduciary Guarantee Law is one of the material guarantees specifically regulated in Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Guarantees that realizes the public's need for legal certainty but guaranteed objects still have economic value.  Article 15 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees is felt burdensome to debtors, because creditors make forced efforts to take fiduciary guarantee objects in the form of 2-wheeled and 4-wheeled vehicles. The purpose of this study is (1) Finding and analyzing the basis of the Constitutional Court's Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 (2) Finding and explaining the legal consequences of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 on legal protection for parties to credit agreements with fiduciary guarantees (3) Finding and explaining constraints on Financial Service Institutions (LJK) in the implementation of constitutional court decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019.  The research method used is juridical normative and empirical with a case study approach so that achievements are more comprehensive related to the principle of legal protection for parties in fiduciary guarantees. The result obtained that since the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the executive confiscation cannot be done directly by creditors must go through a court decision. The executorial confiscation in Article 15 of Law Number 42 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee has been contrary to Article 1 (3), Article 27 (1), Article 28D (1), Article 28G (1) and Article 28H (4) of the Constitution of 1945. It takes good faith from the parties so that the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 guarantees justice, legal certainty and provides legal protection. An agreement is required in accordance with the principle of freedom of proportionate contract, there is a balance of position between the debtor and the creditor.","PeriodicalId":190076,"journal":{"name":"NOTARIIL Jurnal Kenotariatan","volume":"89 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NOTARIIL Jurnal Kenotariatan","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22225/jn.6.2.2021.65-77","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Fiduciary Guarantee Law is one of the material guarantees specifically regulated in Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Guarantees that realizes the public's need for legal certainty but guaranteed objects still have economic value.  Article 15 of Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees is felt burdensome to debtors, because creditors make forced efforts to take fiduciary guarantee objects in the form of 2-wheeled and 4-wheeled vehicles. The purpose of this study is (1) Finding and analyzing the basis of the Constitutional Court's Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 (2) Finding and explaining the legal consequences of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 on legal protection for parties to credit agreements with fiduciary guarantees (3) Finding and explaining constraints on Financial Service Institutions (LJK) in the implementation of constitutional court decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019.  The research method used is juridical normative and empirical with a case study approach so that achievements are more comprehensive related to the principle of legal protection for parties in fiduciary guarantees. The result obtained that since the Decision of the Constitutional Court No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the executive confiscation cannot be done directly by creditors must go through a court decision. The executorial confiscation in Article 15 of Law Number 42 concerning Fiduciary Guarantee has been contrary to Article 1 (3), Article 27 (1), Article 28D (1), Article 28G (1) and Article 28H (4) of the Constitution of 1945. It takes good faith from the parties so that the implementation of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 guarantees justice, legal certainty and provides legal protection. An agreement is required in accordance with the principle of freedom of proportionate contract, there is a balance of position between the debtor and the creditor.
宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号判决后信用担保协议当事人之法律保护
信义担保法是1999年第42号信义担保法具体规定的物质担保之一,实现了公众对法律确定性的需要,但被担保对象仍具有经济价值。1999年关于信义保函的第42号法第15条对债务人来说是一种负担,因为债权人被迫以两轮和四轮车辆的形式取得信义担保对象。本研究的目的是:(1)寻找并分析宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号决定的依据;(2)寻找并解释宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号决定对具有信托担保的信贷协议当事人的法律保护的法律后果;(3)寻找并解释金融服务机构(LJK)在执行宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号决定时的约束。研究方法采用司法规范与实证相结合的案例研究法,使研究成果更全面地涉及信义担保中当事人的法律保护原则。根据宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号决定,行政没收不能由债权人直接执行,必须通过法院判决。关于信托担保的第42号法律第15条规定的强制没收违反了1945年《宪法》第1(3)条、第27(1)条、第28D(1)条、第28G(1)条和第28H(4)条。宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号决定的执行保障了司法公正、法律确定性并提供了法律保护,各方都表现出诚意。根据比例合同自由原则,需要达成协议,债务人和债权人之间的地位是平衡的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信