Publication Search

Eksekusi hak tanggungan merupakan salah satu upaya penyelesaian kredit bermasalah yang diberikan kepada kreditor sebagai bentuk perlindungan hukum atas jaminan kebendaan. Namun dalam praktiknya, pelaksanaan eksekusi hak tanggungan di Pengadilan Negeri seringkali mengalami hambatan baik secara administratif maupun teknis hukum. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis efektivitas pelaksanaan eksekusi hak tanggungan dalam penyelesaian kredit bermasalah serta faktor-faktor yang mempengaruhinya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah pendekatan yuridis normatif dan empiris. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pelaksanaan eksekusi hak tanggungan masih belum efektif karena panjangnya proses birokrasi peradilan, kurangnya pemahaman masyarakat terhadap hukum jaminan, serta belum optimalnya peran lembaga peradilan dalam mempercepat proses eksekusi. Dibutuhkan reformasi regulasi dan percepatan proses eksekusi melalui penguatan peran pengadilan dan sistem administrasi eksekusi yang terintegrasi.

The development of financing practices with fiduciary guarantees in Indonesia often raises legal issues, especially regarding the unilateral withdrawal of credit objects by creditors against defaulting debtors. This action is often carried out without the consent of the debtor or a court decision, thus potentially violating the principles of justice and the principle of due process of law. This research aims to analyze the form of legal protection for debtors in a fiduciary financing agreement. The type of research used is normative juridical with an approach to legislation and court decisions. The results showed that the act of unilateral withdrawal can be categorized as a civil and criminal tort. Therefore, regulatory reform, increased legal literacy, and a fair and humanist dispute resolution mechanism are needed. It is recommended that fiduciary execution be carried out in accordance with legal procedures to protect the debtor's constitutional rights and ensure fairness in contractual relationships.

Bank credit agreements are often drafted in the form of standardized clauses that are detrimental to customers because they are made unilaterally by banks without room for negotiation. This position imbalance is exacerbated by low legal literacy and information asymmetry between the two parties. This research aims to analyze the ideal form of legal protection for customers in the face of harmful standard clauses. Through a normative juridical approach and case studies, it is found that regulations such as the Consumer Protection Law and POJK have provided a legal basis, but their implementation is still weak. Ideal legal protection includes three aspects: preventive, repressive, and curative, and requires the active role of the state and OJK as supervisors. Regulatory updates, strengthened legal education, and fairer contract supervision are needed to create an equitable and inclusive financial ecosystem. Effective protection will also strengthen public confidence in the banking sector.