<![CDATA[Tujuan penelitian menganalisis perlindungan hukum terhadap penerima jaminan fidusia?; Bagaimanakah perbedaan eksekusi jaminan fidusia sebelum dan sesudah adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019?. Metode kajian yang dipakai dalam penyusunan tesis ini ialah “Normatif (yuridis normatif). Kesimpulan dari kajian ini ialah: Kepastian hukum terhadap penerima jaminan fidusia serta eksekusi jaminan fidusia sebelum dan sesudah keluar putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Pada waktu eksekusi berjalan, pemberi fidusia tetap mempertahankan barang yang menjadi objek jaminan. Eksekusi jaminan sebelum dan sesudah keluar putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Sebelum vonis MK tersebut, polisi sudah terlibat dalam pengamanan eksekusi berdasarkan Peraturan Kepala Polri No. 8/2011 tentang Pengamanan Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia. Perbedaan eksekusi jaminan fidusia sebelum dan sesudah adanya putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019, menafsirkan bahwa kuasa eksekutorial seperti pada Pasal 15 ayat (2) UU No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia yang bermakna sama seperti sebelumnya selama setiap pihak terkait dapat secara suka rela menerima pelaksanaan eksekusi serta mengaku telah wanprestasi/cedera janji. The research objective is to analyze the legal protection for recipients of fiduciary guarantees.; What are the differences in the execution of fiduciary guarantees before and after the Constitutional Court decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019? The study method used in preparing this thesis is "Normative (normative juridical). The conclusion of this study is Legal certainty for recipients of fiduciary guarantees and the execution of fiduciary guarantees before and after the Constitutional Court decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. While the execution is underway, the fiduciary still retains the goods that are the object of collateral. Execution of guarantees before and after the Constitutional Court decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 is issued. Before the Constitutional Court's verdict, the police had been involved in securing the execution based on Chief of Police Regulation no. 8/2011 concerning Securing the Execution of Fiduciary Guarantees. The difference in the execution of fiduciary guarantees before and after the Constitutional Court decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, interprets that the executorial power as in Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law no. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees which has the same meaning as before as long as each related party can voluntarily accept the execution and admit that they have defaulted/breached their contract.]]>
