An agreement is when a person commits to another person to do something or when both parties commit to carry out something. However, in practice, there are often cases of default, where there are parties who do not fulfill their obligations in accordance with the contents of the agreement, as happened in the case of a kiosk sale and purchase agreement in Kupang District Court Decision Number 132.18/PDT.G/2016/PN.KPG. This article aims to analyze the occurrence of default in the kiosk sale and purchase agreement and analyze the judge's decision in resolving the default with the principles of justice. This article adopts a qualitative approach by using the normative juridical method and conducting a literature study. The results of this research analysis explain that the judge's decision in this case has fulfilled the necessary conditions. The Defendant has been found in default by the Panel of Judges and is entitled to pay the remaining money according to the agreement letter. The principles of legal certainty and justice have also been applied properly by considering all evidence and witness testimony before making a decision.

This research is motivated by the frequent occurrence of unilateral executions by creditors that often harm debtors. The study examines the impact of Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 on the execution of fiduciary guarantee objects in Indonesia. This ruling reinterprets provisions in Law No. 42 of 1999 on Fiduciary Guarantees, and the research focuses on the legal uncertainties in the implementation of fiduciary guarantees, particularly regarding the rights and protection of debtors during the repossession of collateral objects by creditors. Although the Constitutional Court’s decision aims to provide a balanced protection between the rights of debtors and creditors, practical challenges in the field indicate that this balance has yet to be fully realized. Unlike previous studies that only discussed the aspects of the decision, this research offers a new perspective by examining the obstacles in the execution process, both before and after the Constitutional Court's decision, and analyzing specific case studies. This study uses a normative juridical method. The findings indicate that although the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 has provided a stronger legal foundation, legal protection for debtors has not been fully achieved. Non-compliance by financing institutions and a lack of understanding of the amended provisions are the main obstacles. Therefore, further harmonization between the Fiduciary Guarantee Law and related regulations is needed to ensure consistent and aligned implementation in fiduciary guarantee execution. Enhanced supervision mechanisms and fair law enforcement are also necessary to achieve balanced legal protection.



Penelitian ini dilatarbelakangi oleh praktik eksekusi sepihak oleh kreditur yang seringkali merugikan debitur. Penelitian ini mengkaji dampak Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 terhadap eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia di Indonesia. Putusan ini menafsirkan ulang ketentuan dalam Undang-Undang No. 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Penelitian ini berfokus pada ketidakpastian hukum dalam pelaksanaan jaminan fidusia, khususnya terkait hak dan perlindungan debitur selama proses penarikan objek jaminan oleh kreditur. Meskipun Putusan MK ini bertujuan untuk memberikan keseimbangan perlindungan antara hak debitur dan kreditur, praktik di lapangan menunjukkan adanya tantangan besar, sehingga keseimbangan tersebut belum terwujud sepenuhnya. Berbeda dengan penelitian sebelumnya yang hanya membahas aspek putusan, penelitian ini menawarkan perspektif baru dengan mengkaji kendala implementasi eksekusi di lapangan, baik sebelum maupun setelah Putusan MK, serta menganalisis kasus secara spesifik. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa meskipun Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 telah memberikan landasan hukum yang lebih baik, perlindungan hukum bagi debitur belum sepenuhnya terwujud. Ketidakpatuhan lembaga pembiayaan dan kurangnya pemahaman terhadap perubahan ketentuan menjadi hambatan utama. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan harmonisasi lebih lanjut antara Undang-Undang Jaminan Fidusia dan peraturan terkait lainnya untuk memastikan implementasi yang konsisten dan selaras dalam eksekusi jaminan fidusia.. Dalam penerapannya juga diperlukan peningkatan mekanisme pengawasan dan penegakan hukum yang adil sehingga dapat mewujudkan keseimbangan perlindungan hukum.
Kata kunci: Debitur; Eksekusi; Jaminan Fidusia; Perlindungan Hukum

This study examines the legality and legal consequences of court decisions that grant handlichting to minors to receive grants. Basically, actions carried out by legal subjects are considered valid or not depending on the level of maturity or legal skills they possess. In the Civil Code, there is no special article that regulates the validity and legal consequences of giving land and buildings to minors. This research method is normative juridical. The novelty of this research is that it focuses on the validity and legal consequences of giving grants to minors through the handlichting process. The results show that the validity of the handlichting determination is based on civil law and the legal certainty of the court's decision is questionable due to the judge's inconsistency in determining the age limit for adulthood. In addition to efforts to mature (handlichting), giving gifts to minors should be done through a guardianship that has legal certainty. The legal consequence of accepting a grant in the form of a doctor's clinic is that regarding the grant deed received, the deed is not invalid, but is considered defective because it does not meet the legal competency requirements. Another legal consequence that is accepted in managing the clinic is that the child is only officially permitted to manage and be responsible for the clinic's operations after reaching the age of 21 years and completing medical education.Studi ini mengkaji keabsahan dan konsekuensi hukum dari keputusan pengadilan yang memberikan handlichting kepada anak di bawah umur untuk menerima hibah. Pada dasarnya, tindakan yang dilakukan oleh subjek hukum dianggap sah atau tidak tergantung pada tingkat kedewasaan atau kecakapan hukum yang dimilikinya. Dalam KUHPerdata, tidak ada pasal khusus yang mengatur keabsahan dan konsekuensi hukum pemberian tanah dan bangunan kepada anak yang belum dewasa.  Metode penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif. Kebaruan penelitian ini yaitu memfokuskan kepada keabsahan dan akibat hukum pemberian hibah kepada anak di bawah umur melalui proses handlichting. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa keabsahan penetapan handlichting didasarkan pada hukum perdata dan penetapan pengadilan menjadi diragukan kepastian hukumnya karena ketidakselarasan hakim dalam menentukan batasan usia dewasa. Selain upaya pendewasaan (handlichting), pemberian hibah kepada anak di bawah umur sebaiknya dilakukan melalui perwalian yang memiliki kepastian hukum yang sah. Akibat hukum penerimaan hibah berupa klinik dokter yaitu mengenai akta hibah yang diterima maka akta tersebut tidak batal, namun dianggap cacat karena tidak memenuhi syarat cakap hukum. Akibat hukum lainnya yang diterima dalam pengelolaan klinik dimana anak tersebut baru diizinkan secara resmi untuk mengelola dan bertanggung jawab atas operasional klinik setelah mencapai usia 21 tahun dan menyelesaikan pendidikan kedokteran.