LEGAL REVIEW OF CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NO. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 IN THE EXECUTION OF FIDUCIARY GUARANTEE OBJECTS (CASE STUDY OF LEASING COMPANIES IN CILEGON CITY)

Abstract

The practice of consumer financing through leasing institutions in Indonesia, utilizing fiduciary guarantees, plays a strategic role in supporting public access to motor vehicle ownership. However, the parate execution mechanism, as stipulated in Article 15 paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law Number 42 of 1999, often raises legal issues because it is implemented without judicial procedures. This situation has caused public unrest due to the practice of forced seizure by debt collectors, which is contrary to the principle of due process of law. Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 is a significant milestone because it limits unilateral Execution and requires an acknowledgement of default or a court order, thereby bringing substantial changes to the legal Protection afforded to debtors.

This research employs a normative legal approach, utilizing statutory, case, and conceptual methods to analyze the topic. The research data are sourced from primary legal materials, including the Fiduciary Guarantee Law and decisions of the Constitutional Court, as well as secondary legal materials from academic literature. The results of the study indicate that Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 strengthens the legal position of debtors in Indonesia's positive legal system by limiting the practice of parate Execution. However, implementation in Cilegon City still faces obstacles, including the lack of technical regulations, slow adjustments to fiduciary contracts by leasing companies, and low understanding among officials and the public, which ultimately leads to legal uncertainty in practice.

Theoretically, this research contributes to the enrichment of civil law literature related to legal certainty and legal Protection following the Constitutional Court Decision. Practically, this research provides understanding for leasing companies, law enforcement officials, and the public regarding the procedures for executing fiduciary objects in accordance with constitutional principles. The study's limitations lie in its normative nature, which does not fully reflect the empirical situation. For further research, a more in-depth empirical study is recommended through interviews with law enforcement officials, leasing companies, and debtors in various regions.