---

Monday, May 3, 2021 | 12:47 WIB

The Petitioner’s attorney Zico Leonard D. Simanjuntak conveying the petition revisions at the judicial review hearing of the Fiduciary Law, Tuesday (20/4/2021) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Monday (3/5/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Bayu.

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The second judicial review hearing of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security was held by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Monday, May 3, 2021. The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair), Suhartoyo, and Enny Nurbaningsih.

The petition for material judicial review of the Fiduciary Law in case No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by Joshua Michael Djami. Through attorney Zico Leonard D. Simanjuntak, he conveyed the revisions to the petition. He stressed that he is still working as a debt collector at a financing company. He confessed of having faced difficulties due to interpretation of the article, such as reduced income.

“In addition, the Petitioner and [fellow debt collectors] have faced cases and issues because the execution of fiduciary objects requires a court decision. It is systemic and factual, because the Constitutional Court ruled that the execution of fiduciary objects requires a court decision. The cases that the Petitioner has gone through will be proven by witness accounts in the evidentiary hearing. Fellow debt collectors, financing companies, and law enforcement officials will testify about the facts and empirical data,” Simanjuntak said.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests the Court so that the case can advance to the evidentiary hearing so that he can present the impacted parties to testify. This is because the a quo case concerns many parties, such as financing companies and law enforcement officials.

Also read: Execution of Fiduciary Security Certificate Challenged

Joshua Michael Djami 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.”

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 believes that the case has significant impacts on financing companies, the law enforcement, consumers, and collectors’ associations.

He 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. However, his constitutional rights were violated only because of other collectors’ arbitrariness toward debtors.

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

Translation uploaded on 5/3/2021 14:32 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.

---