Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.23
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Ius Positum: Journal of Journal Of Law Theory And Law Enforcement
Ermita, Yeni
Unknown Affiliation
Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice

Published : 1 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 1 Documents
Search

 1 
JURIDICAL ANALYSIS OF LAW NO. 42/1999 WITH CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NO. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 ON MOTOR VEHICLE WITHDRAWAL BY DEFAULTING DEBTORS Ermita, Yeni; Sumaryanto, Dr. A. Djoko
IUS POSITUM: Journal of Law Theory and Law Enforcement Vol. 3 Issue 2 (2024)
Publisher : jfpublisher

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.56943/jlte.v3i2.553

Abstract

Motor vehicles are often confiscated by people who do not repay debts, and are occasionally subjected to violence or threats from debt collectors. Meanwhile, Law No. 42/1999 Article 15 stipulates that the withdrawal can be self executed. However, Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 states that execution must go through the courts, which leads to differences in interpretations. Some interpreted the withdrawal to require a judicial process, while others argued that it could be done on their own, which led to forced withdrawals by debt collectors. Therefore, this research is conducted to  analyze the juridical implications of Law No. 42/1999 on Fiduciary Guarantee regarding the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, which specifically discusses motor vehicle withdrawals by creditors against defaulting debtors. A normative juridical approach with qualitative analysis was chosen to obtain an in-depth and accurate understanding of the legal issues discussed. The approaches used in this research are statute approach and case approach. The result of this research is in Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the Constitutional Court reviewed and reinterpreted Article 15 Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 42/1999 on Fiduciary Guarantee. The Court found that the law allowed for arbitrary actions by creditors, causing injustice to debtors. The decision mandated that the execution of collateral, such as the withdrawal of a motor vehicle, must be done through a District Court decision rather than unilaterally by the creditor.
Co-Authors Sumaryanto, Dr. A. Djoko