<![CDATA[Undang-undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia lahir memberikan kepastian hukum dan perlindungan hukum bagi Debitur dan Kreditur. Ketentuan adanya Eksekutorial pada Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia atas pengikatan obyek jaminan fidusia yang dibiayai oleh Lembaga pembiayaan memberikan kewenangan untuk melakukan Parate Eksekusi atas obyek jaminan fidusia, apabila Debitur melakukan wanprestasi atas perjanjian kreditnya. Namun demikian ada beberapa putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang mengabulkan pihak debitur juga kreditur terkait dengan eksekusi obyek jaminan fidusia. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini adalah bagaimana putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap title eksekutorial dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi jaminan fidusia. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji dan menganalisis putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap title eksekutorial pelaksanaan eksekusi jaminan fidusia. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan konseptual, perundang-undangan dan kasus. Sumber data sekunder dengan menginvetarisasi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi terkait dengan eksekusi jaminan fidusia, dianalisis secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa adanya polemik sejak Mahkamah Konstitusi mengeluarkan Putusan Nomor 188/PUU-XVII/2019 dan Putusan Nomor 71/PUU-XIX/2021, sehingga implikasi atau pelaksanaan atas putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi tersebut, terkait adanya Parate Eksekusi hanya dapat dilaksanakan oleh Kreditur apabila ada kesepakatan atara kreditur dan debitur terkait cidera janji atau wanprestasi dan debitur keberatan menyerahkan obyek jaminan secara sukarela, maka mekanisme pelaksanaan eksekusi hanya dapat dilaksanakan melalui permohonan fiat eksekusi dan yang berhak melaksanakan eksekusi adalah Pengadilan Negeri Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees provides legal certainty and legal protection for Debtors and Creditors. The provision of an Executory on the Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate for the binding of the object of the fiduciary guarantee financed by the financing institution gives the authority to carry out a Parate of Execution on the object of the fiduciary guarantee, if the Debtor defaults on his credit agreement. However, there are several Constitutional Court rulings that grant debtors as well as creditors related to the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects. The problem in this study is how the Constitutional Court's decision on the executory title in the execution of fiduciary guarantees. The purpose of this study is to review and analyze the Constitutional Court's decision on the executory title of the execution of fiduciary guarantees. This research is a normative juridical research with conceptual, statutory and case approaches. The purpose of this study is to review and analyze the Constitutional Court's decision on the executory title of the execution of fiduciary guarantees. This research is a normative juridical research with conceptual, statutory and case approaches. Secondary data sources by surveying Constitutional Court decisions related to the execution of fiduciary guarantees, analyzed qualitatively. The results showed that there have been polemics since the Constitutional Court issued Decision Number 188/PUU-XVII/2019 and Decision Number 71/PUU-XIX/2021. so that the implication or implementation of the decision of the Constitutional Court, related to the existence of the Execution Parate can only be carried out by the Creditor if there is an agreement between the creditor and the debtor regarding the default or default and the debtor objects to voluntarily submitting the object of guarantee, then the mechanism for carrying out the execution can only be carried out through an application for execution fiat and the one who has the right to carry out the execution is the District Court.]]>
