| Issue Number : 3783

MK Redefines the Interpretation of Executorial Titles of Fiduciary Security Certificates and Defaults Relating to the Execution of Fiduciary Security

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi - “MK”) recently rendered Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 (“Decision 18/2019”) in relation to a petition for judicial review which was originally filed by Apriliani Dewi and Suri Agung Prabowo (collectively referred to as “Petitioners”) on 15 February 2019.[1]

By way of background, the Petitioners had requested that the MK declare Article 15, Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security (“Fiduciary Security Law”) unconstitutional due to the fact that these provisions focused solely on protecting the rights of creditors and were prone to result in arbitrary actions from creditors towards debtors. The Petitioners, therefore, claimed that the provisions in question were in violation of their constitutional rights as debtors, as they failed to uphold the principles of legal certainty, equality before the law and the protection of ownership rights, all of which are guaranteed under the country’s 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.[2]

......

Subscribe to read more legal analysis.

Hukumonline Pro Intelligence

Platform AI hukum terpercaya sebagai solusi komprehensif riset Anda

professionalprofessionalProfessional Solutions
professionalprofessionalUniversity Solutions
*Syarat dan ketentuan berlaku

The Constitutional Court (Mahkamah Konstitusi - “MK”) recently rendered Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 (“Decision 18/2019”) in relation to a petition for judicial review which was originally filed by Apriliani Dewi and Suri Agung Prabowo (collectively referred to as “Petitioners”) on 15 February 2019.[1]

By way of background, the Petitioners had requested that the MK declare Article 15, Paragraphs (2) and (3) of Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Security (“Fiduciary Security Law”) unconstitutional due to the fact that these provisions focused solely on protecting the rights of creditors and were prone to result in arbitrary actions from creditors towards debtors. The Petitioners, therefore, claimed that the provisions in question were in violation of their constitutional rights as debtors, as they failed to uphold the principles of legal certainty, equality before the law and the protection of ownership rights, all of which are guaranteed under the country’s 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.[2]

......

Subscribe to read more legal analysis.

Hukumonline Pro Intelligence

Platform AI hukum terpercaya sebagai solusi komprehensif riset Anda

professionalprofessionalProfessional Solutions
professionalprofessionalUniversity Solutions
*Syarat dan ketentuan berlaku
2026 Hak Cipta Milik Hukumonline.com
Cookies Info