Panel revision hearing of the judicial review of the Fiduciary Law, Wednesday (10/6) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary on Wednesday (10/6/2020). The hearing for case No. 19/PUU-XVIII/2020 took place with physical distancing amidst the large-scale social restrictions (PSBB) in the Jakarta Special Capital Region to curb the spread of COVID-19, in accordance with the health protocols set by the Indonesian Health Ministry and the World Health Organization (WHO).

In the petition revision hearing, Petitioner I Pazriansyah and Petitioner II Firdaus through attorney Ari J. C. Pasaribu conveyed revision to the articles being challenged. Initially they argued that Article 30, Article 23 paragraph (2), and Article 36 of the Fiduciary Law are unconstitutional. They reduced the articles only to Article 30 and the Elucidation to Article 30 of the Fiduciary Law. The Petitioners claimed to have lost their rights because as collectors they cannot seize fiduciary collateral. In a lawsuit that they were involved in, it was declared that when they seized fiduciary collateral, they were said to have committed crime.

“Because […] Article 30 and the Elucidation to Article 30 the Fiduciary Law do not explain the nature of fiduciary collateral. Therefore, if the a quo article is interpreted as what had happened in this lawsuit, the Petitioners will have lost their freedom because they received an inkracht verdict in the form of a 5-month criminal sentence and social sanction with allegation of larceny,” explained Pasaribu before the Court presided over by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo along with Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Enny Nurbaningsih.

In the previous hearing, the Petitioners stated that they are individual citizens who work as internal collectors of a financial service company in Tembilahan, Pekanbaru, Riau. When executing fiduciary security in their job on a defaulting debtor who had no ability to fulfill the terms of the financing agreement, they were reported of larceny and damage.

They were then sentenced for five months following the Supreme Court Decision No. 282 K/PID/2018 dated May 8, 2018. The Petitioners argued that they were unfairly treated and accused of stealing the object of fiduciary security, which supposed to be the creditor’s responsibility.

They believe that the Fiduciary Law gives creditors preferential treatment in the collecting and execution of fiduciary security, both by employees or internal collectors of financial service companies or external collectors. Negative responses of bad creditors hinder collectors in doing their job and subject them to criminalization. Therefore, the Petitioners are of the opinion that the provision of the articles does not provide legal certainty and may not even provide adequate legal protection for collectors in carrying out their job.

The Constitutional Court offers the petitioners and their attorney(s), the government, experts, witnesses, and other parties to come to the courtroom or to hold the hearing online. The Constitutional Court uses Zoom and Cloudx to enable litigating parties to follow the court hearing from their respective locations. When filing a petition for an online hearing, they must inform the Court’s ITC team of their communication devices at least two days prior. (Sri Pujianti/ASF/LA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 06/10/2020