<![CDATA[Studi ini bertujuan agar memahami warna baru dari ketentuan Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia yaitu Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No.18/PUU-XVII/2019 yang menyatakan beberapa pasal dalam ketentuan aturan ini inkonstitusional bersyarat. Adapun guna memahami lebih jauh mengenai hal tersebut dilakukan digunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif beberapa pendekatan dimulai dari pendekatan melalui peraturan perundang-undangan serta pendekatan konseptual. Berdasarkan metode tersebut ditemukan hasil bahwasanya jaminan fidusia, sebagai jaminan kebendaan yang diatur dalam UU No. 42 Tahun 1999, memberikan kedudukan superior kepada kreditur melalui hak eksekusi langsung (parate executie) berdasarkan sertifikat fidusia yang memiliki kekuatan eksekutorial setara dengan putusan pengadilan. Namun, kekuatan ini kerap disalahgunakan oleh kreditur, seperti penetapan sepihak status wanprestasi debitur tanpa proses verifikasi yang adil, serta penggunaan jasa debt collector ilegal yang melanggar prinsip itikad baik (Pasal 1338 KUH Perdata) dan asas perlindungan konsumen. Di sisi lain, debitur rentan mengalami pelanggaran hak akibat ketiadaan mekanisme banding efektif sebelum eksekusi dilakukan. MK akhirnya menyatakan bahwa frasa “kekuatan eksekutorial” dalam Pasal 15 ayat (2) tidak boleh diartikan sebagai kewenangan absolut kreditur untuk mengeksekusi tanpa proses peradilan, terutama jika terjadi sengketa. Penetapan wanprestasi pada ayat (3) juga harus didasarkan pada kesepakatan para pihak atau putusan pengadilan, bukan klaim sepihak kreditur. Kata Kunci: Jaminan Fidusia, Debitur, Eksekusi Jaminan Putusan MK No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 ABSTRACT This research study aims to understand the new color of the provisions of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, namely the Constitutional Court Decision No.18/PUU-XVII/2019 which states that several articles in the provisions of this regulation are conditionally unconstitutional. In order to understand further about this matter, a normative juridical research method was used, several approaches starting from the approach through legislation and conceptual approaches. Based on this method, it was found that the fiduciary guarantee, as a material security regulated in Law No. 42 of 1999, provides a superior position to the creditor through the right of direct execution (parate executie) based on the fiduciary certificate which has executorial power equivalent to a court decision. However, this power is often abused by creditors, such as the unilateral determination of the debtor's default status without a fair verification process, as well as the use of illegal debt collectors who violate the principle of good faith (Article 1338 of the Civil Code) and the principle of consumer protection. On the other hand, debtors are vulnerable to rights violations due to the absence of an effective appeal mechanism before execution is carried out. The Constitutional Court finally stated that the phrase “executorial power” in Article 15 paragraph (2) should not be interpreted as the absolute authority of creditors to execute without a judicial process, especially in the event of a dispute. The determination of default in paragraph (3) must also be based on the agreement of the parties or a court decision, not the creditor's unilateral claim. Key Words: Fiduciary Guarantee, Debtor, Execution of Guarantee, Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 ]]>
