Legal standing of The Constitutional Court Decision No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021

There was a lot of news out there after the CONSTITUTIONAL COURT ruled on the Constitution. A number of media raised titles that were contrary to the contents of the ruling, so there was a risk that the media would provide false information to the public. In the case of topics that are exaggerated and exaggerated headlines, and hyperbole, there is a high chance of disturbance in the general public because the general public does not understand the ruling and leading to confusion.

It has been determined that the Constitutional Court has rendered a decision dated February 12, 2021. A case for 2/PUU-XIX/2021 has been rejected entirely by the Constitutional Court, the applicant Johsua Michael Jami, the Internal Collector at a finance company, who applied for a material test based on Article 15 Paragraph 2 of the Fiduciary Law, as the object of the application.

Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Fiduciary Law as long as the phrase "executory power" and the phrase "equal to a court decision of permanent legal force" are contrary to the 1945 Constitution and have no binding legal force as long as it is not interpreted, against fiduciary guarantees for which there is no agreement on default and the debtor objects to voluntarily surrendering the object that is a fiduciary guarantee, then all legal mechanisms and procedures in the execution of the Certificate of Guarantee  Fiduciary shall be conducted and apply equally to the execution of a judgment of a court which has permanent legal force.

In his ruling :
Provision: Rejecting the Applicant's provisioning application
In the Subject matter of the Application: Rejecting the petitioner's application in its entirety.

The Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, issued on January 6, 2020, in consideration of the regulatory provisions of the Constitutional Court, remains in force against the fiduciary guarantee of the aforementioned petitioner. The decision of the Constitutional Court is as follows.

That it is thus clear and clear to the extent that the fiduciary entitled (the debtor) has acknowledged the existence of a "default" (default) and voluntarily surrendered the object of the fiduciary agreement, it becomes the sole authority of the fiduciary beneficiary (the creditor) to be able to carry out the execution himself (execution parate).

It is important to note that if the opposite occurs, where the fiduciary grantor (the debtor) does not recognize that a default has occurred and objects to surrendering the object of the fiduciary agreement voluntarily, then the fiduciary beneficiary (the creditor) cannot execute the agreement by himself, but instead must apply to the district court for execution.