Publication Search

This study aims to analyze the legal consequences arising from changes to personal data made by data subjects on the validity of collateral that has been used as security for credit, as well as to examine the forms of legal protection that may be granted to creditors. Changes to personal data such as identity, address, and the debtor’s legal status may lead to legal uncertainty regarding the validity of credit security agreements, particularly those involving Hak Tanggungan (mortgage rights). In this research, the author employs a normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches. The findings of this study show that changes to personal data without notification or updates to the security documents have the potential to create administrative discrepancies and legal risks for creditors during the execution of the collateral. Legal protection for creditors needs to be strengthened through the regulation of the debtor’s obligation to report any changes in personal data, updates to the security certificates, and clear provisions outlined in the credit agreement. Accordingly, legal certainty between the creditor and the debtor can be maintained in line with the implementation of Law Number 27 of 2022 on Personal Data Protection.

The execution of Mortgage Rights (Hak Tanggungan) represents legal certainty as regulated in Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage Rights. Execution of the collateral object can be carried out through private sale, parate execution, or based on an executorial title. This mechanism reflects good faith and trust between the creditor and debtor in a lending agreement. In line with Sharia principles, the murabahah financing contract also allows for collateral (rahn tasjily), granting the creditor the authority to execute the collateral object if the debtor defaults. This study aims to analyze the implementation of Mortgage Rights execution in Sharia financing, specifically under the murabahah contract. The method used is normative juridical research with a descriptive approach, employing statutory and case study analysis, and based on literature and relevant regulations. The results indicate that land rights can serve as collateral under Mortgage Rights in Sharia financing. This is confirmed in the Supreme Court Decision Number 179K/Pdt/2017, which serves as jurisprudential precedent for Decision Number 3/Yur/2018, where the collateral is executed through a Deed of Granting Mortgage Rights. The position of the creditor in a murabahah contract is equivalent to that in conventional financing, as confirmed in the DSN-MUI Fatwa, thus the creditor retains the right to execute even if the debtor defaults before the due date.

People's Business Credit (KUR) is a financing program distributed by the government through banking institutions, including Bank Rakyat Indonesia (BRI), to support Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) and cooperatives. In its implementation, KUR credit is not free from various problems, one of which is non-performing loans. This study aims to determine the factors causing non-performing loans and efforts to resolve them in KUR loans at Bank BRI Karanganyar Branch, Tasikmadu Unit. The method used in this study is qualitative research, with data sources derived from primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. Data collection techniques were conducted through direct interviews with relevant parties. The results show that the main causes of non-performing loans are divided into two major factors. First, external factors, namely those originating from the customer. This problem is generally related to the customer's inability to pay installments due to business failure. Second, internal factors, such as the failure of creditworthiness analysis by bank officers, resulting in prospective debtors who are actually unworthy actually receiving loans. In resolving non-performing loans, BRI Bank's Karanganyar Branch, Tasikmadu Unit, applies five main methods: (1) changing the loan interest rate, (2) reducing fines or penalties, (3) reducing the outstanding principal, (4) extending the loan term, and (5) selling collateral. Additionally, there are also settlement methods that involve a combination of these five methods, depending on the debtor's circumstances and the agreement between the two parties.

Postponement of Debt Payment Obligations (PKPU) is a legal mechanism that provides an opportunity for creditors and debtors to submit a debt reschedule plan to avoid bankruptcy. In the PKPU process, creditors have a role in determining the success of the agreement. In this case, concurrent creditors are more advantaged, because their position can be equal to that of separatist creditors who have collateral. This study examines how the existence of concurrent creditor sovereignty in the agreement process through PKPU, and to what extent the regulations regarding concurrent creditors and their rights are benefited in the cassation decision, especially in the Supreme Court Decision Number 751 K /Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024. This research is a normative legal research, with prescriptive legal approach and conceptual approach. The types of data used include primary and secondary legal materials, which are collected through literature studies. The legal material analysis technique uses the syllogism and interpretation methods. The results of the analysis, this study identifies how the protection of concurrent creditor sovereignty in peace through PKPU. And how the Supreme Court Decision in Decision No. 751 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024 pays more attention to concurrent creditors. In this discussion, shows how the regulations and legal protection of concurrent creditors, while discussing the Supreme Court Decision No. 751 K/Pdt.Sus-Pailit/2024 which gave rise to polemics in the interpretation of the provisions of Article 281 paragraph 1. However, it is likely to reflect the judiciary in considering all creditors and debtors, to achieve equal justice for all parties.

This study aims to (1) determine the legal provisions regarding the execution of fiduciary guarantees based on Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, (2) determine the legal limitations in the execution of fiduciary guarantees against problematic credit based on applicable legal provisions. The type of research used is normative legal research, using a qualitative approach. The results of the study indicate that although normatively fiduciary execution can be carried out directly by the creditor based on a fiduciary certificate that has executorial power, in practice various obstacles arise. These obstacles include the unregistered fiduciary deed, imperfect agreements, debtor approval, to the decision of the Constitutional Court which guarantees the existence of a default agreement and court involvement if an agreement occurs. This study concludes that legal protection for debtors is getting stronger, but the effectiveness of fiduciary as a credit guarantee faces new challenges in its implementation.