Legal Protection in Fiduciary Security Disputes between Creditors and Debtors
Main Article Content
Abstract
Fiduciary security supports financing against movable assets by allowing debtors to retain possession while granting creditors priority in repayment. Disputes arise when default is contested, surrender is refused, or collection develops into unilateral repossession. This article examines proportionate protection for creditors and debtors across creation, registration, default, collection, enforcement, and dispute resolution. It uses normative legal research with statutory, case, and conceptual approaches, supplemented by limited functional comparison through the literature. The analysis draws on the Fiduciary Security Law, Constitutional Court decisions, financial services consumer protection rules, and scholarship. Protection beyond the certificate's enforcement authority requires valid registration, objective default clauses, documented collection, evidence of voluntary surrender, third-party oversight, and access to dispute resolution. The article proposes a three-stage model covering creation and registration, default and collection, and enforcement and its aftermath. The model integrates certainty of security rights, due process, and accountability for market conduct.
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
Calomiris, Charles W., Mauricio Larrain, José Liberti, and Jason Sturgess. “How Collateral Laws Shape Lending and Sectoral Activity.” Journal of Financial Economics 123, no. 1 (2017): 163–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2016.09.005.
Campello, Murillo, and Mauricio Larrain. “Enlarging the Contracting Space: Collateral Menus, Access to Credit, and Economic Activity.” Review of Financial Studies 29, no. 2 (2016): 349–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhv069.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019. January 6, 2020.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021. August 31, 2021.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Decision Number 71/PUU-XIX/2021. February 24, 2022.
Financial Services Authority. Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 22 Tahun 2023 tentang Pelindungan Konsumen dan Masyarakat di Sektor Jasa Keuangan.
Hidayah, Nur Putri, Komariah, Satria Unggul Wicaksana Prakasa, and Sonny Zulhuda. “Modeling the Contract and Execution Fiduciary on Constitutional Court Decision.” Journal of Human Rights, Culture and Legal System 3, no. 1 (2023): 95–108. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v3i1.76.
Hirsanuddin and Sudiarto. “Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Para Pihak (Kreditur dan Debitur) Melalui Parate Executie Obyek Hak Tanggungan.” Jurnal IUS Kajian Hukum dan Keadilan 9, no. 1 (2021): 253–67. https://doi.org/10.29303/ius.v9i1.890.
Insani, Nur, Retna Gumanti, Arpin, and Siti Alfisyahrin Lasori. Hukum Acara Perdata. Kalimantan Selatan: Ruang Karya Bersama, 2025.
Insani, Nur, Sumiyati Beddu, and Sri Nanang Meiske Kamba. Hukum Perdata dalam Teori dan Praktik. Kabupaten Banjar: Ruang Karya Bersama, 2025.
Kristiyanti, Celina Tri Siwi. “Legal Protection of the Parties in Credit Agreement with Fiduciary Guarantee after the Issuence of Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019.” NOTARIIL Jurnal Kenotariatan 6, no. 2 (2021): 65–77. https://doi.org/10.22225/jn.6.2.2021.65-77.
Li, Xiao, Jeffrey Ng, and Walid Saffar. “Movable Assets as Collateral in Debt Financing and Effects on Trade Credit: Evidence from Collateral Law Reforms.” Journal of Financial Stability 78 (2025): 101406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2025.101406.
Mao, Yifei. “Managing Innovation: The Role of Collateral.” Journal of Accounting and Economics 72, no. 1 (2021): 101419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2021.101419.
Muslim, Shohib, Shinta Hadiyantina, Hudriyah Mundzir, and Zainal Amin Ayub. “The Meaning of ‘Strength Executive’ in the Constitutional Court Decision for the Execution of Fiduciary Securities.” Legality: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum 31, no. 1 (2023): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.22219/ljih.v31i1.23244.
Ongena, Steven, Walid Saffar, Yuan Sun, and Lai Wei. “Movables as Collateral and Corporate Credit: Loan-Level Evidence from Legal Reforms across Europe.” Journal of Banking & Finance 170 (2025): 107331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbankfin.2024.107331.
Qamar, Nurul, and Farah Syah Rezah. Metode Penelitian Hukum: Doktrinal dan Non-Doktrinal. Edited by Abdul Kahar Muzakkir and Faisal Rahman. CV. Social Politic Genius (SIGn), 2020.
Ramsay, Iain, and Toni Williams. “Peering Forward, 10 Years After: International Policy and Consumer Credit Regulation.” Journal of Consumer Policy 43, no. 1 (2020): 209–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-019-09436-x.
Republic of Indonesia. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata (Burgerlijk Wetboek).
Republic of Indonesia. Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 21 Tahun 2015 tentang Tata Cara Pendaftaran Jaminan Fidusia dan Biaya Pembuatan Akta Jaminan Fidusia.
Republic of Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1999 Nomor 168, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3889.
Republic of Indonesia. Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1999 tentang Perlindungan Konsumen. Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1999 Nomor 22, Tambahan Lembaran Negara Republik Indonesia Nomor 3821.
Salvia, Merva Putri, and Luh Putu Yeyen Karista Putri. “Constitutionality of the Execution of Fiduciary Guarantees within the Framework of Consumer Rights Protection.” Jurnal Konstitusi 21, no. 2 (2024): 275–91. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2127.
Satory, Agus, Yenny Febrianty, Widiyanti Rahayu Budi Astuti, and Aditya Fajri Kurnia Pradana. Metode Penelitian Hukum. Tahta Media, 2024.
Stănescu, C.-G. “Regulation of Abusive Debt Collection Practices in the EU Member States: An Empirical Account.” Journal of Consumer Policy 44, no. 2 (2021): 179–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-020-09476-8.
Syamsudin, M. “The Failure of the Court to Protect Consumers: A Review of Consumer Dispute Resolution in Indonesia.” Journal of Consumer Policy 44, no. 1 (2021): 117–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-020-09470-0.