KEWENANGAN DEBT COLLEKTOR DALAM MENAGIH KENDARAAN YANG TIDAK MEMBAYAR PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSINOMOR 18/PUU-XVII/2019

TIMBUL HANOPAN PUTRA, NPM 2112100016 (2025) KEWENANGAN DEBT COLLEKTOR DALAM MENAGIH KENDARAAN YANG TIDAK MEMBAYAR PASCA PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSINOMOR 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Masters thesis, Universitas Labuhanbatu.

[img] Text
COVER.pdf
Download (1MB)
[img] Text
BAB I.pdf
Download (638kB)
[img] Text
BAB II.pdf
Download (329kB)
[img] Text
BAB III.pdf
Download (319kB)
[img] Text
BAB IV.pdf
Download (483kB)
[img] Text
BAB V.pdf
Download (270kB)
[img] Text
DAFTAR PUSTAKA.pdf
Download (476kB)

Abstract

Kewenangan Debt Collector Dalam Menagih Kendaraan Yang Tidak Membayar Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019. 2. Faktor kendala yang dihadapi Debt Collector dalam penerapan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU XVII/2019.3. Mekanisme penyelesaian Penarikan Kendaraan Bermotor Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Penelitian yang di gunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan sifat penelitian deskriptif analitis. Pendekatan yuridis normatif yang ditujukan untuk menggambarkan dan menguraikan secara tepat, akurat, dan sistematis atas sengketa wanprestasi antara debitur dan kreditur dalam Perjanjian Pembiayaan kendaraan bermotor, yang dihubungkan dengan teori-teori hukum yang berkaitan dengan permasalahan dan ketentuan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, sesuai dengan tema Permasalahan yang dibahas. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019telah memberikan makna atas Pasal 15 Ayat (2) dan Ayat (3) UU No. 42 Tahun 1999. Segala mekanisme dan prosedur hukum dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi Sertifikat Jaminan Fidusia harus dilakukan dan berlaku sama dengan pelaksanaan eksekusi putusan pengadilan yang telah berkekuatan hukum tetap, dalam hal terdapat putusan pengadilan terkait objek perjanjian turunan dan perjanjian pokoknya, maka eksekusi terhadap objek jaminan fidusia, merujuk pada putusan pengadilan terkait.. Faktor lainnya yaitu adanya sikap Penolakan terhadap Hasil Putusan sidang Pengadilan Negeri dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi objek jaminan, Dimana debitur belum sepenuhnya menerima putusan tersebut untuk secara sukarela menyerahkan objek jaminan fidusia kepada kreditur atas pelunasan hutang pembiayaan oleh debitur sehingga menimbulkan hambatan dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi.Mekanisme Penyelesaian Penarikan Kendaraan Bermotor Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019terhadap objek jaminan fidusia dilakukan melalui proses Pengadilan Negeri Dimana proses eksekusi objek jaminan tersebut diajukan kepada Pengadilan Negeri, dengan adanya Putusan terhadap eksekusi objek jaminan tersebut oleh juru sita Pengadilan Negeri, maka debitur secara sukarela harus menyerahkan objek jaminan tersebut kepada pihak kreditur. Dengan tetap melakukan kewajiban dalam membayarkan sisa hutang pembiayaan kepada kreditur.Debt Collector tidak lagi dapat melakukan penarikan secara paksa dan sewenang-wenang apa yang menjadi objek jaminan fidusia. Tindakan penarikan secara paksa akan menimbulkan dampak hukum pidana berkaitan dengan Perampasan yang diatur dalam Pasal 368 KUHP. Adapun pelaksanaan eksekusi terhadap objek jaminan dapat dilakukan oleh kreditur yang mana debitur sebagai pemberi fidusia dalam keadaan cidera janji (wanprestasi), serta debitur dalam perjanjian menyatakan bersedia sukarela menyerahkan objek jaminan fidusia tersebut kepada pihak kreditur. Kata Kunci: Kewenangan, Debt Collector, Kendaraan Yang Tidak Membayar, Perjanjian, Wanprestasi ================================================================================================== The Authority of Debt Collectors in Collecting Vehicles That Have Not Paid After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. 2. The constraints faced by Debt Collectors in implementing the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. 3. The mechanism for resolving the Withdrawal of Motor Vehicles After the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. The research used in this study is a normative legal research method with an analytical descriptive research nature. The normative juridical approach is aimed at describing and explaining precisely, accurately, and systematically the default dispute between debtors and creditors in the Motor Vehicle Financing Agreement, which is connected with legal theories related to the problems and provisions of applicable laws, in accordance with the theme of the Problems discussed.Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019has given meaning to Article 15 Paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3) of Law No. 42 of 1999. All legal mechanisms and procedures in the implementation of the execution of the Fiduciary Guarantee Certificate must be carried out and apply the same as the implementation of the execution of a court decision that has permanent legal force, in the event that there is a court decision related to the object of the derivative agreement and the main agreement, then the execution of the fiduciary guarantee object, refers to the relevant court decision. Another factor is the attitude of Rejection of the Results of the District Court's Decision in the implementation of the execution of the guarantee object, where the debtor has not fully accepted the decision to voluntarily hand over the fiduciary guarantee object to the creditor for the repayment of the financing debt by the debtor, thus causing obstacles in the implementation of the execution. Mechanism for Settlement of Motor Vehicle Revocation After Constitutional Court Decision Number 18 of 2019 against the fiduciary guarantee object is carried out through the District Court process. Where the process of executing the guarantee object is submitted to the District Court, with the Decision on the execution of the guarantee object by the District Court bailiff, the debtor must voluntarily hand over the guarantee object to the creditor. By continuing to fulfill their obligations to pay the remaining financing debt to the creditor, Debt Collectors can no longer forcibly and arbitrarily seize the fiduciary collateral. Such forced seizure will result in criminal legal consequences related to Confiscation as regulated in Article 368 of the Criminal Code. The execution of the collateral may be carried out by the creditor, where the debtor, as the fiduciary provider, is in default, and the debtor, in the agreement, states that he is willing to voluntarily hand over the fiduciary collateral to the creditor. Keywords: Authority, Debt Collector , Unpaid Vehicle, Agreement, Default.

Item Type: Thesis (Masters)
Uncontrolled Keywords: Kewenangan, Debt Collector, Kendaraan Yang Tidak Membayar, Perjanjian, Wanprestasi===============Authority, Debt Collector , Unpaid Vehicle, Agreement, Default
Subjects: K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions: Fakultas Hukum > Hukum
Depositing User: Unnamed user with email repository@ulb.ac.id
Date Deposited: 09 Mar 2026 07:28
Last Modified: 09 Mar 2026 07:28
URI: http://repository.ulb.ac.id/id/eprint/2108

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item
ulb is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.