---

Tuesday, April 20, 2021 | 13:23 WIB

The Petitioner’s attorney Dora Nina Lumban Gaol at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security, Tuesday (20/4/2021) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—A preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday, April 20, 2021. The case was filed by Joshua Michael Djami, who attended the virtual hearing.

The Petitioner challenges Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Fiduciary Law, which reads, “The Fiduciary Security Certificate as referred to in paragraph (1) has the same executorial power as that of a final and binding court decision.” He also challenges its elucidation, which reads, “In this provision, the term ‘executorial power’ means that it can be implemented directly without going through any court and it is final and binding to the parties in executing such decision.”

Attorney Dora Nina Lumban Gaol revealed that the Petitioner works as a certified internal debt collector at a financing company. He confessed of having faced difficulties due to the article, such as decline of income, which hindered the execution of fiduciary objects because debtors often refused it.

“The judicial review of the a quo law is closely related to the settlement and regulation of fiduciary objects, which involves debt collectors, as well as the human resources, procedures, and management. The Petitioner is a collector working in collateral collection and execution. It is a fact that [he] has legal standing to file the a quo petition, Lumban Gaol said to the panel chaired by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

The Petitioner believes that the case has significant impacts on financing companies, the law enforcement, consumers, and collectors’ associations. Since the Constitutional Court’ss decision is erga omnes (applies to everyone), he strongly requested a provision for the case to advance to the evidentiary hearing, not immediately ruled, as per Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law, so that the Petitioner can invite affected parties as witnesses or relevant parties. He hoped that, whatever the decision would be, there would be a stronger sense of justice for all parties because testimonies have been heard.

The Petitioner also alleged that there is no fair legal protection for the financing industry because fiduciary execution bears expenses higher than the objects being executed. The fact that some financing companies hire uncertified debt collectors who often harass debtors, as mentioned in Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, doesn’t mean that all companies does. He believes that many certified, honest collectors like him exist.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo highlighted the Petitioner’s legal standing. He believed the Petitioner hadn’t shown his capacity as a debt collector as argued in the petition.

“The evidence [submitted] was only the Petitioner’s work schedule and professional certificate. Whether the certificate is relevant or not must be emphasized in this petition. It must confirm the [his] legal standing,” he said. He also recommended that the Petitioner strengthen his argument against the norms petitioned through empirical evidence.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih questioned the Petitioner’s power of attorney. She asked the Petitioner to review the touchstone and strengthen his argument on it.

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh pressed for more thoroughness in the petition’s format, for example italicizing phrases in any foreign languages. He also recommended that the Petitioner elaborate on his profession, not only show his certificate. “Like a driver having a driver’s license but no experience in driving,” he said.

Writer: Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor: Nur R.
Translator: Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 4/20/2021 17:24 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian version, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---