<![CDATA[The phrase “interested parties” in Article 20 paragraph (3) of Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage Rights (Hak Tanggungan) is not accompanied by a clear normative limitation. This lack of clarity has led to divergent interpretations in judicial practice and has the potential to create legal uncertainty in the execution of mortgage objects through private sale. Within the framework of a security rights system that emphasizes legal certainty and the effectiveness of enforcement, such normative ambiguity becomes problematic, as it may trigger disputes and inconsistencies in court decisions. This study aims to analyze the forms of normative vagueness inherent in the phrase and to formulate juridical limitations consistent with the principle of legal certainty. The research employs a normative juridical method using statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. The analysis is conducted through grammatical, systematic, and conceptual interpretation of primary and secondary legal materials in order to identify the locus of ambiguity and its implications. The findings demonstrate that the phrase “interested parties” cannot be interpreted broadly without limitation, but must be restricted to legal subjects who possess a direct legal relationship with the mortgaged object and who face a measurable and objectively verifiable juridical risk of loss. Normative reconstruction is therefore necessary through a more limitative and operational formulation to ensure legal certainty, predictability of application, consistency of judicial decisions, and balanced legal protection for the parties within the national financing system.]]>
