Article Sidebar

Download
Download Article

Main Article Content

Abstract

Auction practices in Indonesia have been known since 1908 through the Vendu Reglement and have evolved from conventional to digital mechanisms. Singapore also has a tradition of auctions dating back to the British colonial period in the 19th century. This study aims to compare mortgage foreclosure auction practices in Indonesia (a civil law tradition) and property foreclosure in Singapore (a common law tradition), focusing on efficiency, transparency, and legal certainty. The method used is normative legal research with a regulatory and comparative approach, grounded in a literature review. The results of the study show that Indonesia has a strong legal basis through PMK No. 213/PMK.06/2020, which provides formal legal certainty, including through Auction Reports as authentic deeds. However, the effectiveness of auction digitisation via lelang.go.id remains constrained by inter-agency integration. In addition, there is the potential for third-party objections to auction results (derdenverzet, i.e., resistance or objections from third parties), which can hinder the finality of auction results. In contrast, Singapore implements an integrated digital auction system supported by strict regulations, including the Auctioneers' Licences Act. Legal certainty is strengthened by the finality of transactions under the fall of the hammer principle, which enables rapid contract binding. Overall, Singapore's auction system demonstrates higher efficiency and accountability and can serve as a reference for Indonesia in strengthening end-to-end integration and consistency in the implementation of national auctions.

Keywords

Enforcement Auctions Security Interests Legal Certainty Civil Law Common Law

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

How to Cite
Maskanah, U., Bahyudin, M., Buana, T. L., & Zulkarnain, M. A. I. (2026). Comparative Study of Mortgage Auctions in Indonesia and Singapore. Golden Ratio of Law and Social Policy Review, 5(2), 236–249. https://doi.org/10.52970/grlspr.v5i2.1870
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Azzahra, S. F., & Badriyah, M. S. (2023). Legal protection for auction winners of enforced mortgage objects. Lex Renaissance Journal, 8(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.20885/JLR.vol8.iss1.art10
  2. Andriawan, N., Marjo, M., & Utama, K. (2020). Pelaksanaan lelang online (e-auction) di KPKNL Kota Semarang. Diponegoro Law Journal, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.14710/dlj.2020.27006
  3. Andriawan, N., et al. (2022). Legal protection of the auction winner in parate executie: A juridical analysis. EAI (Proceedings). https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.4-11-2022.2329678
  4. Auditor-General's Office (AGO). (2020). Audit of public procurement practices in Singapore. https://www.ago.gov.sg/docs/default-source/reports/audit-of-public-procurement-practices-in-singapore.pdf
  5. Auctioneers Act (Cap. 16, Revised Edition 2014). (2014). Singapore Statutes Online. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/AA1906
  6. Consumer Protection (Fair Trading) Act (Cap. 52A). (n.d.). Singapore Statutes Online. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/CPFTA1999
  7. Donner, H. (2017). Foreclosures, returns, and buyer intentions. Journal of Real Estate Research, 39(2), 189–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10835547.2017.12091469
  8. Donner, H. (2020). Determinants of foreclosure discount. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 35, 1079–1097. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-020-09757-1
  9. Electronic Transactions Act (Cap. 88, 2021 Rev. Ed.). (2021). Singapore Statutes Online. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/ETA1998
  10. Haggard, S., & Tiede, L. (2011). The rule of law and economic growth: Where are we? World Development, 39(5), 673–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2010.10.007
  11. Harahap, M. Y. (2022). Consistency of Supreme Court decisions in the enforcement of mortgage rights (HT): Legal certainty of property guarantees. Ius Quia Iustum Law Journal, 29(4), 721–740.
  12. Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
  13. Henckels, C. (2023). Justifying the protection of legitimate expectations in international investment law: Legal certainty and arbitrary conduct. ICSID Review, 38(2), 347–358. https://doi.org/10.1093/icsidreview/siac027
  14. Hochstetter, J., Vásquez, F., Diéguez, M., Bustamante, A., & Arango-López, J. (2023). Transparency and e-government in electronic public procurement: a sustainable development approach. Sustainability, 15(5), 4672. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15054672
  15. Inderscience. (2025). Implementation of e-procurement policy and corruption in public procurement. International Journal of Electronic Government Research. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEG.2025.148167
  16. Khorana, S., Caram, S., & Rana, N. P. (2024). Measuring public procurement transparency with an index: Exploring the role of e-GP systems and institutions. Government Information Quarterly, 41(3), 101952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101952
  17. Kwan, P. (2018). Contractual certainty and property sales in Singapore's common law: Analysing the "Fall of the Hammer" rule. Singapore Law Review, 40, 120–145.
  18. Lee, M. (2020). Regulation of auctioneers in Singapore. Singapore Law Review, 38, 75–78.
  19. Liono, A. S. (2018). Legal protection for buyers of mortgage auctions. De'Jure Scientific Law Journal: Scientific Legal Studies, 3(1), 1–23.
  20. Low, K. F. (2019). E-government and public procurement efficiency: A comparative study of Singapore's GeBIZ. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 41(3), 255–270.
  21. Maramis, S. E. (2020). Reform of state auction policy in realising good governance in the Directorate General of State Assets. Public Policy Journal, 11(1), 1–15.
  22. Marzuki, P. M. (2017). Legal research (Revised ed.). Kencana.
  23. Ng, K. (2010). The trading port of Singapore: A colonial history. Singapore University Press.
  24. Radbruch, G. (1973). Legal philosophy (8th ed.). C.F. Müller.
  25. Ristyawati, A., Utama, Y., Wardhani, L., & Hanum, W. (2025). Rethinking legislative term limits: Safeguarding democratic renewal in the constitutional state of Indonesia. Diponegoro Law Review, 10(1), 16–28. https://doi.org/10.14710/dilrev.10.1.2025.16-28
  26. Setyawan, D. (2021). Inconsistency of court decisions in the legal protection of auction winners against third-party claims. Journal of Law and Development, 51(2), 481–500.
  27. Singapore Police Force. (2023). Auctioneer licence guidelines. https://www.police.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/auctioneer-licence-guidelines.pdf
  28. Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2010). Normative legal research: A brief review. RajaGrafindo Persada.
  29. Sukmaya, M. A., Abubakar, L., & Handayani, T. (2020). Legal protection for auction winners of collateral objects in cases where lawsuits hinder execution from the perspective of collateral law. Galuh Justisi Scientific Journal, 8(2), 203–216. https://doi.org/10.25157/justisi.v8i2.3605
  30. Sukwanto, J. H. (2020). Legal protection for buyers with underhand agreements. Lex Journal: Legal & Justice Studies, 162–180. https://doi.org/10.25139/lex.v6i2.5673
  31. Sunaryati Hartono. (1994). Comparative civil law. Sinar Harapan.
  32. Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322, 2020 Rev. Ed.). (2020). Singapore Statutes Online. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/SCJA1969
  33. Tan, K. Y. L. (2019). The development of Singapore law. Academy Publishing.
  34. Tag, J. (2020). Judicial institutions and property rights protection in relation to foreign direct investment inflows. International Review of Law and Economics, 64, 105975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2020.105975
  35. Taylor & Francis. (2024). Investment decision, legal certainty, and its determinants: Evidence from Indonesia. Cogent Business & Management, 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2332950
  36. Taylor & Francis. (2024). Procurement governance in reducing corruption in public governance: Evidence and implications. Cogent Business & Management, 11. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2393744