Distinguishing Between Proof of Unlawful Acts and Breach of Contract in Disputes Over the Repossession of Fiduciary Collateral: A Civil Procedure Analysis of Judgment No. 345/Pdt.G/2018/PN Jkt.Sel in Light of Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019

Disputes over the withdrawal of fiduciary collateral in financing agreements raise two distinct procedural questions: whether the debtor has defaulted, and whether the creditor's method of collection was lawful. This study analyzes South Jakarta District Court Decision Number 345/Pdt.G/2018/PN Jkt.Sel from a civil procedural law perspective and evaluates it against Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, pronounced on 6 January 2020, which post-dates the district court decision and is therefore used only as an evaluative benchmark. Using normative legal research with statute and case approaches, the study finds that the court examined the unlawful act claim (conventional claim) and the default claim (counterclaim) separately, each with its own elements and evidence: the creditor and its agents were held liable for unlawful acts in the collection process, while the debtor was held in default and ordered to pay the outstanding obligation of Rp212,057,000.00. The creditor's request for surrender of the vehicle was not granted. Measured against the Constitutional Court's interpretation, the case illustrates that a debtor's default does not justify unilateral or coercive withdrawal of collateral, and that a creditor's unlawful conduct does not extinguish the debtor's payment obligation. The study concludes that balanced legal protection requires strict separation between proof of default, proof of unlawful collection, and the lawful route to execution.