<![CDATA[AbstarakImplementasi Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-undang Jaminan Fidusia terkait eksekusi jaminan fidusia dalam praktiknya menimbulkan kesewenang-wenangan kreditur ketika menagih, menarik objek jaminan fidusia (benda bergerak) dengan dalih debitur cidera janji. waktu terjadinya cidera janji tersebut tidak ada penjelasan dalam Pasal 15 Undang-undang Jaminan Fidusia itu, Dalam pertimbangan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dijelaskan, bahwa cidera janji harus dibuat dan disepakati para pihak. Kalau para pihak tidak ada kesepakatan, maka pelaksanaan eksekusi melalui putusan pengadilan sesuai HIR dan RBg .Dengan demikian, persoalan cidera janji dalam eksekusi jaminan fidusia tidak langsung diselesaikan melalui pengadilan. Namun, harus didahului kesepakatan para pihak untuk menentukan kapan terjadinya tuduhan cidera janji tersebut. Jika sudah ada kesepakatan para pihak, kreditur dapat langsung mengeksekusi. Lebih lanjut Mahkamah Konstitusi menyatakan Pasal 15 ayat (2) UU Jaminan Fidusia frasa “kekuatan eksekutorial” dan frasa “sama dengan putusan pengadilan yang berkekuatan hukum tetap” inkonstitusional sepanjang tidak dimaknai terhadap jaminan fidusia yang tidak ada kesepakatan cidera janji (wanprestasi) dan debitur keberatan menyerahkan secara sukarela objek jaminan fidusia, maka segala mekanisme dan prosedur hukum pelaksanaan eksekusi Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia harus dilakukan dan berlaku sama dengan pelaksanaan eksekusi putusan pengadilan yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap. Kata kunci: Eksekusi, Jaminan, FidusiaAbstractThe implementation of Article 15 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of the Fiduciary Security Act relating to the execution of fiduciary guarantees in practice raises the creditor's arbitrariness when collecting, withdrawing fiduciary collateral objects (movable objects) under the pretext of the debtor in breach of promise. at the time of the breach of promise there was no explanation in Article 15 of the Fiduciary Security Act. In consideration of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 it was explained that the breach of the promise must be made agreed by the parties. If the parties do not have an agreement, then the execution of the execution through a court decision in accordance with HIR and RBg. Thus, the issue of breach of contract in the execution of fiduciary guarantees is not immediately resolved through the court. However, the parties' agreement must be preceded to determine when the alleged breach of the allegation occurred. If there is an agreement between the parties, the creditor can immediately execute. The Constitutional Court further stated that Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Fiduciary Guarantee Law on the phrase "executive power" and the phrase "equals a court decision that has permanent legal force" is unconstitutional as long as it does not mean fiduciary guarantees for which there is no breach of agreement (default agreement) and the debtor object to objection voluntarily surrender the object of fiduciary guarantee, then all the legal mechanisms and procedures for the execution of the execution of the Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate must be carried out and in effect the same as the execution of a court decision that has permanent legal force. Keywords: Execution, Guarantee, Fiduciary]]>
