Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asking for the Petitioners’ clarification of signatures at the judicial review hearing of the Fiduciary Law for case No. 57/PUU-XIX/2021, Monday (11/29/2021). Photo by Humas MK/Hendy P.

---

Monday, November 29, 2021 | 15:58 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security on Monday, November 29, 2021 in the plenary courtroom. The petition No. 57/PUU-XIX/2021 was filed by six students of Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa University (Untirta)—Muhammad Armand Prasetyanto, Mohamad Fikri Nur Yahya, Bagas Febriansyah, Geraldus Manahan, Khairul Syekhan Febriansah, and Kharis Pranatal Sihotang.

The petition revision hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo (panel chair), Wahiduddin Adams, and Enny Nurbaningsih. The Petitioners conveyed the revisions to the petition—including the revision to the petition’s title, the background of the petition and the elaboration of the differences between it and past, similar petitions, virtually. The Petitioners requested that a standard contract of integrated fiduciary security be made.

In response, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo questioned the Petitioners’ seriousness in filing the petition as only three out of six Petitioners signed the revised petition.

“Only three Petitioners signed the revised petition while all six signed the list of evidence. Therefore, only three Petitioners can submit the revisions,” he said.

Also read: Untirta Students Challenge Execution Procedure in Fiduciary Law

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, November 11, 2021, the Petitioners expressed their challenge over the ambiguous execution procedure of fiduciary security. They challenge Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Fiduciary Law and its elucidation against Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The a quo article 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.” The elucidation 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.”

They claimed that the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 and 2/PUUXIX/2021 had changed fiduciary security. Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the Court ruled that Article 15 paragraph (2) of the Fiduciary Law and its elucidation are unconstitutional. However, in Decision No. 2/PUUXIX/2021the Court essentially declared that the execution of a fiduciary security certificate through a district court is only an alternative in the event that there is no agreement between the creditor and the debtor, in relation to default and voluntary submission of the object of security from the debtor to the creditor.

“The Petitioners believe there are discrepancies in the two decisions, leading to legal uncertainty of the regulation in Indonesia, in this case on the execution of fiduciary security,” Bagas Febriansyah, one of the Petitioners, said.

They insisted the execution of fiduciary security must be through the court. This is important given that debt collectors often act unilaterally and seize debtors’ properties. The execution of fiduciary security through the court will provide fair legal certainty and, thus, must be a given.

Writer        : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 12/8/2021 07:48 WIB

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

---