Normative legal analysis reveals partial compliance with constitutional standards in asset repossession, highlighting the need for mutual agreement before collateral seizure.
Fiduciary security is one of the legal instruments widely used in financing activities in Indonesia, particularly in consumer financing transactions. The enactment of Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 has significantly changed the mechanism for executing fiduciary security objects by requiring the existence of an agreement regarding default and voluntary surrender of the collateral object by the debtor. This study aims to analyze the validity of the execution of fiduciary security objects conducted by PT Adira Finance Gorontalo Branch after the Constitutional Court Decision, examine whether the debtor's actions fulfill the criteria of default as stipulated in Article 15 of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Security, and identify dispute resolution mechanisms available to debtors. This research employs normative legal research using statutory and conceptual approaches. The findings indicate that the execution of fiduciary security objects by PT Adira Finance Gorontalo Branch demonstrates partial conformity with Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, as efforts have been made to prioritize persuasive measures and legal procedures, although practices of direct repossession are still found. Furthermore, the determination of debtor default cannot be made unilaterally by creditors and must be based on mutual agreement or judicial mechanisms. Disputes arising from fiduciary security execution may be resolved through both non-litigation and litigation processes, with non-litigation being more frequently used in practice due to its efficiency, while litigation provides stronger legal certainty. Therefore, the implementation of fiduciary security execution must be carried out in accordance with the principles established by the Constitutional Court in order to ensure legal certainty, justice, and protection for both creditors and debtors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Masayu et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: