Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

Fiduciary security plays a central role in modern security transactions by allowing creditors to obtain enforceable ownership rights over movable assets, while debtors retain physical possession of the collateral. The effectiveness of fiduciary security depends not only on the creation of enforceable ownership rights in the event of default but also on the clear allocation of legal liability between the debtor and creditor when the pledged assets are transferred to another party. The transfer of fiduciary security objects gives rise to complex legal issues regarding the continuity of ownership rights. This article discusses: (1) how fiduciary security generates enforceable ownership rights in security transactions; and (2) how the responsibilities of the debtor and creditor toward the fiduciary security object shift when it is transferred to another party. This study employs a doctrinal legal research method, combining a statutory approach to analyze the normative framework of fiduciary security with a conceptual approach to examine ownership rights and debtor-creditor liability, as well as the judicial interpretation of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Security, specifically Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 and Constitutional Court Decision No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021.

Keywords

Fiduciary Security Secured Asset Secured Transactions Self-Help Enforcement

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Said, S., Yuliawan, I., & Irawati, A. C. (2026). Legal Review of the Transfer of Fiduciary Guarantee Objects and the Legal Responsibilities of Creditors-Debtors. Golden Ratio of Data in Summary, 6(3), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.52970/grdis.v6i3.2220
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Agus Yudha Hernoko, Problematika Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia Benda Bergerak di Indonesia, Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan
  2. Bahsan, M. 2007. Hukum Jaminan dan Jaminan Kredit: Perbankan Indonesia. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
  3. Christofel D. S. M. K. Perlindungan Hukum Kreditur dalam Perjanjian Jaminan Fidusia terhadap Benda Bergerak, Jurnal: Lex Privatum
  4. Fuady, Munir. 2013. Jaminan Fidusia. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti.
  5. Hasbullah, Frieda Husni. 2005. Hukum Kebendaan Perdata: Hak-Hak yang Memberi Jaminan. Jakarta: Ind-Hill-Co.
  6. HS, Salim. 2014. Perkembangan Hukum Jaminan di Indonesia. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada.
  7. I Gusti Ngurah Parwata, dkk. Analisis Yuridis Eksekusi Objek Jaminan Fidusia Benda Bergerak Pasca Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019, Jurnal: Jurnal Interpretasi Hukum
  8. I Ketut Oka Setiawan, Eksekusi Jaminan Fidusia Berupa Benda Bergerak Berdasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaaminan Fidusia, Jurnal Hukum To-Ra (Hukum untuk Mengatur dan Menata)
  9. Kamello, Tan. 2006. Hukum Jaminan Fidusia: Suatu Analisis Terhadap Eksistensi Janji-Janji dalam Perjanjian Jaminan Fidusia. Alumni: Bandung.
  10. Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata.
  11. Muhammad Hafidz Syafiuddin & Fransiscus X.A. Lukman, Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Pengalihan Objek Jaminan Fidusia Tanpa Persetujuan Kreditur
  12. Mulyadi, L. 2021. Hukum perdata: Perbuatan melawan hukum dan wanprestasi dalam putusan Mahkamah Agung. Jakarta: Kencana.
  13. Ni Putu Ayu Devi Ariyanti & I Ketut Markeling, Tanggung Jawab Debitur dalam Perjanjian Jaminan Fidusia Benda Bergerak yang Dialihkan kepada Pihak Ketiga. Jurnal Kertha Semaya (Universitas Udayana)
  14. Nurhayati, Y., Ifrani, & Said, M. Y. 2021. Metodologi normatif dan empiris dalam perspektif ilmu hukum. Jurnal Penegakan Hukum Indonesia, 2(1)
  15. Parman, Ali. 2004. Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Kreditur dan Debitur dalam Perjanjian Jaminan Fidusia. Jakarta: Jala Permata.
  16. Prodjodikoro, W. 2021. Hukum perdata tentang persetujuan-persetujuan tertentu. Bandung: Sumur Bandung.
  17. Putra, P. A. A. 2021. Konsep Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Perspektif Hukum Ekonomi Syariah. Gorontalo Law Review, 4(1)
  18. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 terkait Pengujian Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia.
  19. Rajagukguk, E. 2007. Hukum perjanjian Indonesia dalam perspektif perbandingan. Depok: FH UI Press.
  20. Satrio, J. 2002. Hukum Jaminan, Hak Jaminan Kebendaan, Fidusia. Citra Aditya Bakti.
  21. Sinaga, N. A. 2020. Implementasi Hak Dan Kewajiban Para Pihak Dalam Hukum Perjanjian. Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Dirgantara, 10(1).
  22. Soekanto, Soerjono. 2008. Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Penegakan Hukum. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.
  23. Suharnoko. 2004. Hukum Perjanjian: Teori dan Analisa Kasus. Jakarta: Kencana Prenada Media Group.
  24. Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia
  25. Usman, Rachmadi. 2009. Hukum Jaminan Keperdataan. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.
  26. Widjaja, Gunawan & Ahmad Yani. 2003. Jaminan Fidusia. Jakarta: RajaGrafindo Persada.
  27. Widjaja, Gunawan., & Yani, Achmad. 2003. Jaminan Fidusia. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada.