宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号判决后对四家汽车金融公司实施信义担保执行的若干问题

N. Adiasih, H. Min, S. Lestari
{"title":"宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号判决后对四家汽车金融公司实施信义担保执行的若干问题","authors":"N. Adiasih, H. Min, S. Lestari","doi":"10.4108/eai.3-8-2021.2315068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The execution of a fiduciary guarantee on the vehicle financing practice often creates problems even though the position of the recipients of the fiduciary guarantee is strong, as mentioned in Indonesia’s Law No. 42/1999. If the agreement is broken, the execution of the fiduciary guarantee can be carried out in three ways: (1) the execution through the executorial title, (2) the sale of the object of the fiduciary guarantee, and (3) the sale under the hand based on an agreement between the giver and the recipient of the fiduciary. After the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 is issued, there are additional provisions, namely agreement on the broken promise which needs to be included and voluntary submission concerning the object of fiduciary. This study was conducted on four automotive financing companies after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, whose implementation was different. The type of this study was normative legal research with a descriptive approach. In addition, the data used were secondary data which were analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study can be concluded that (1) there are different interpretations of the regulations of the execution of fiduciary guarantees, (2) there are requirements that are difficult to fulfill, and (3) there are contradictions in several court decisions. The recommendations offered are that technical guidelines need to be made to support legal certainty in the execution of fiduciary guarantees.","PeriodicalId":210740,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the First Lekantara Annual Conference on Public Administration, Literature, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education, LePALISSHE 2021, August 3, 2021, Malang, Indonesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Several Problems on the Implementation of Fiduciary Guarantee Execution on Four Automotive Financing Companies after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019\",\"authors\":\"N. Adiasih, H. Min, S. Lestari\",\"doi\":\"10.4108/eai.3-8-2021.2315068\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The execution of a fiduciary guarantee on the vehicle financing practice often creates problems even though the position of the recipients of the fiduciary guarantee is strong, as mentioned in Indonesia’s Law No. 42/1999. If the agreement is broken, the execution of the fiduciary guarantee can be carried out in three ways: (1) the execution through the executorial title, (2) the sale of the object of the fiduciary guarantee, and (3) the sale under the hand based on an agreement between the giver and the recipient of the fiduciary. After the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 is issued, there are additional provisions, namely agreement on the broken promise which needs to be included and voluntary submission concerning the object of fiduciary. This study was conducted on four automotive financing companies after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, whose implementation was different. The type of this study was normative legal research with a descriptive approach. In addition, the data used were secondary data which were analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study can be concluded that (1) there are different interpretations of the regulations of the execution of fiduciary guarantees, (2) there are requirements that are difficult to fulfill, and (3) there are contradictions in several court decisions. The recommendations offered are that technical guidelines need to be made to support legal certainty in the execution of fiduciary guarantees.\",\"PeriodicalId\":210740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the First Lekantara Annual Conference on Public Administration, Literature, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education, LePALISSHE 2021, August 3, 2021, Malang, Indonesia\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the First Lekantara Annual Conference on Public Administration, Literature, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education, LePALISSHE 2021, August 3, 2021, Malang, Indonesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.3-8-2021.2315068\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the First Lekantara Annual Conference on Public Administration, Literature, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education, LePALISSHE 2021, August 3, 2021, Malang, Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.3-8-2021.2315068","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

正如印度尼西亚第42/1999号法律所述,尽管信托担保接受者的地位很强,但在车辆融资实践中执行信托担保往往会产生问题。如果违背约定,信义保证的履行可以通过以下三种方式进行:(1)通过遗嘱所有权的履行,(2)信义保证物的出售,(3)信义人与受信人约定的手下出售。宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号判决书发布后,又增加了需要包括的失信约定、信义对象自愿提交等附加条款。本研究以宪法法院第18/PUU-XVII/2019号判决后执行情况不同的四家汽车金融公司为对象。这项研究的类型是规范性的法律研究与描述性的方法。此外,所使用的数据均为二手数据,并进行了定性分析。研究结果表明:(1)信义担保执行规定存在不同的解释;(2)存在难以履行的要求;(3)若干法院判决存在矛盾。提出的建议是,需要制定技术准则,以支持执行信托担保时的法律确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Several Problems on the Implementation of Fiduciary Guarantee Execution on Four Automotive Financing Companies after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019
The execution of a fiduciary guarantee on the vehicle financing practice often creates problems even though the position of the recipients of the fiduciary guarantee is strong, as mentioned in Indonesia’s Law No. 42/1999. If the agreement is broken, the execution of the fiduciary guarantee can be carried out in three ways: (1) the execution through the executorial title, (2) the sale of the object of the fiduciary guarantee, and (3) the sale under the hand based on an agreement between the giver and the recipient of the fiduciary. After the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 is issued, there are additional provisions, namely agreement on the broken promise which needs to be included and voluntary submission concerning the object of fiduciary. This study was conducted on four automotive financing companies after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, whose implementation was different. The type of this study was normative legal research with a descriptive approach. In addition, the data used were secondary data which were analyzed qualitatively. The results of the study can be concluded that (1) there are different interpretations of the regulations of the execution of fiduciary guarantees, (2) there are requirements that are difficult to fulfill, and (3) there are contradictions in several court decisions. The recommendations offered are that technical guidelines need to be made to support legal certainty in the execution of fiduciary guarantees.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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