RASIO DECIDENDI PUTUSAN MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI NOMOR 18/PUU-XVII/2019 DAN PERUBAHAN KONSTRUKSI NORMA EKSEKUSI DAN WANPRESTASI DALAM SISTEM HUKUM INDONESIA

ABSTRAKPutusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 menimbulkan sejumlah dampak. Kreditur tidak dapat lagi melakukan eksekusi serta merta terhadap jaminan kebendaan bergerak berdasarkan akta fidusia jika debitur melakukan wanprestasi. Bagaimanakah rasio legis Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi (MK) Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, metode pendekatan yuridis kualitatif yaitu penelitian hukum yang mengutamakan penelitian terhadap bahan pustaka berupa hukum positif yaitu (MK) Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019, Undang-undang Fidusia. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa kewenangan ekslusif yang dimiliki oleh penerima Hak Fidusia, tetap melekat sepanjang tidak terdapat permasalahan dengan kepastian waktu perihal kapan pemberi Fidusia telah cidera janji, dan debitur secara sukarela menyerahkan benda yang menjadi objek fidusia. Kreditur tidak dapat serta merta menjual objek jaminan fidusia karena cdera janji tidak dapat ditentukan secara sepihak oleh kreditur, namun harus dengan adanya kesepakatan antara kreditur dengan debitur atau atas dasar adanya putusan pengadilanyang menyatakan debitur wanprestasiKata kunci: eksekusi; jaminan fidusia; putusan mahkamah kosntitusi; rasio decidendi. ABSTRACTThe decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019 has had a number of impacts. The creditor no longer able to execute the movable property collateral based on the fiduciary deed when the debtor defaults. What is the legal ratio of the Constitutional Court (MK) Decision Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019. This study uses a normative juridical method, a qualitative juridical approach, namely legal research that prioritizes research on library materials in the form of positive law, namely (MK) Number 18 / PUU-XVII / 2019, Fiduciary Law. The conclusion is the exclusive authority possessed by the recipient of Fiduciary Rights remains attached as long as there is no problem with the certainty of time regarding when the Fiduciary has failed his promise, and the debtor voluntarily surrenders the object which is the object of fiduciary. The creditor cannot immediately sell the object of the fiduciary guarantee because the covenant cannot be determined unilaterally by the creditor, but it must be with an agreement between the creditor and the debtor or on the basis of a court decision stating that the debtor is in default.Keywords: constitutional court; execution; fiduciary guarantee; rasio decidendi