The Use of Debt Collector Services in the Forced Withdrawal of Fiduciary Guarantees at PT. Smart Multifinance (Study of Decision Number 5/Pdt.G.S/2021/PN Bit)

Wildan Bintang Sanditya¹, I Wayan Yasa², Yusuf Adiwibowo³

^1,2,3 Faculty of Law, University of Jember, East Java, Indonesia

ABSTRACT: Bad credit is a common problem in lending, and finance companies often use debt collectors to withdraw collateral if debtors fail to pay. This withdrawal must comply with applicable regulations. PT. Smart Multifinance used debt collectors in the dispute case with consumer Mulyanti Badu in Court Decision Number 5/Pdt.g.s/2021/PN Bit,. Forced withdrawals carried out by debt collectors without a court decision or fiduciary certificate are considered unlawful. This research aims to analyze the legality of using debt collector services in withdrawing fiduciary guarantees and legal protection for consumers in these disputes. The research uses normative juridical methods with a statutory and conceptual approach, using primary and secondary legal materials. The research conclusion shows that the use of debt collector services is legal if it complies with Indonesian law and correct procedures. Legal protection for consumers includes internal protection (in agreements) and external protection (legislative).

KEYWORDS: Debt collector, Fiduciary guarantee, Execution

1. INTRODUCTION

A financing institution is a “non-bank financial institution that was established specifically to carry out activities within or throughout the financial institution’s business fields, referred to as a financing company or multi-finance company.” (La Ode Munawir et al., 2022). One of the business sectors that is included in the scope of finance companies is leasing or leasing. Leasing is a financing activity in the form of providing capital goods, either by means of leasing with option rights (Finance Lease) or leasing without option rights (Operating Lease) for use by the lessee for a period of time.” (Novia Dwi Khariati, 2020). Credit activities in the form of loan funds in finance companies cannot be separated from various problems, one of which is bad credit. Leasing finance companies are also inseparable from the role of third parties, namely debt collectors. “The use of debt collector services is often used  by financial institutions that provide fiduciary guarantees to withdraw objects that are the object of fiduciary guarantees if the debtor defaults.”(Ronald Fadly Sopemana, 2021).  Debt collectors are third parties who connect creditors with debtors in terms of credit withdrawals, but this collection can only be done if credit bills are problematic or bad.

Finance companies use the services of third parties or debt collectors in forced withdrawals of fiduciary guarantees, as is the case with PT. Smart Multifinance, which entered into a legal credit agreement relationship with a debtor named Mulyanti Badu who carried out financing activities, namely in the form of a credit facility for loan funds in the form of sale and lease back. The debtor sells the vehicle to the creditor and the creditor then refinances the vehicle to the debtor. In the beginning, the debtor always paid installments in a row. However, in the middle of the credit period, the debtor experienced financial problems which resulted in delays in fulfilling the installments. Then the creditor PT. Smart Multifinance on July 13 2021 forcibly withdrew the fiduciary collateral object by using debt collector services while it was being driven. The debtor felt unacceptable and sued the finance company because the debtor felt that this action was not in accordance with statutory regulations.

Based on the description above, the author is interested in discussing the problems that arise in a scientific work in the form of a thesis with the title The Use of Debt Collector Services in the Forced Withdrawal of Fiduciary Guarantees at PT. Smart Multifinance (Study of Decision Number 5/Pdt.G.S/2021/PN Bit) ?

1. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Researchers use qualitative techniques with a normative legal approach. Study law using normative juridical methods prioritizes analysis of legal sources, both materials primary law such as statutes and secondary legal materials such as those from various sources legal knowledge in the form of literature. By using a statutory approach invitation and conceptual approaches. Analysis presented descriptively in an effort to provide a clear understanding of the problems studied.

III.  RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

1. Legality of Using Debt Collector Service in Withdrawing Fiduciary Collateral by Finance Companies

Validity has a meaning that refers to a form of recognition about something that is believed to be true, legal and legitimate. In the English dictionary it is defined as validity and legality. Validity is something that is legal according to law and there is no doubt in it (Liga Sabina Lutungan, 2013). Validity in this writing is validity which means the use of services debt collector by the finance company in terms of implementation of the withdrawal of fiduciary collateral objects which must be in accordance with the provisions applies. Judge’s legal considerations (ratio decidendi) in the District Court’s decision civil code Number 3/Pdt.GS/2021/PN Bit, considering that the execution carried out by The Defendant’s Act is Unlawful because there is no determination of execution District Court, as stated in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, which states that all legal mechanisms and procedures in the execution of the fiduciary guarantee certificate must be carried out and have the same effect as implementation of court decisions that have permanent legal force. Judge considering that, regarding the execution carried out by the Defendant on 1 (one) car 2008 Panther Turbo Touring DB 1833 CL without showing valid documents or the court’s decision to the plaintiff as a consumer is an act of violation law.

The judge’s considerations are in accordance with Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, hereinafter abbreviated to the JF Law, which regulates related matters implementation of the execution of fiduciary guarantees. The presence of Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 amends the article in the JF Law regarding the execution of fiduciary guarantees. With the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, creditors as fiduciaries can no longer unilaterally declare that the debtor has breached his contract (default) as well as carrying out direct, unilateral execution of fiduciary collateral objects (Robert Bouzen & Ashibly, 2021). Fiduciary guarantee certificate containing the instructions “For the sake of justice based on divinity The Almighty” as in accordance with Article 15 paragraph (1) and has power executorial as in Article 15 paragraph (2), no longer immediately has power executorial. The execution of a fiduciary agreement must be based on the agreement of both parties between debtors and creditors.

Referring to the Constitutional Court Decision Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021 which in essence is confirmation of the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 which states that the execution can be submitted to the district court as an alternative, if there is no breach of contract agreement between creditor and debtor, execution cannot be carried out alone, you must request it district court assistance. Requesting assistance from this district court with the aim of namely submit a request for a court order not in the form of a lawsuit (Rio Christiawan & Januar Agung Saputera, 2022). This can means that even if there has been a breach of contract, if the debtor does not agree regarding the matter there is a breach of contract, the nature of parate execution by the creditor attached to the fiduciary guarantee cannot be used. Based on the JF Law, it is stated that fiduciary guarantees are mandatory registered with the fiduciary registration office to obtain a fiduciary guarantee certificate. The aim is to provide the parties with legal certainty regarding credit agreement with fiduciary object collateral that has been registered at the registration office fiduciary (Fahmi Ali Ramadhani, 2021). As in Article 14 paragraph (3) of the JF Law which states that “fiduciary guarantee born on the same date as the date the fiduciary guarantee is recorded in the register book fiduciary”. This means that if the fiduciary guarantee has not been registered then it can be said that fiduciary guarantee has not yet been born.

In accordance with the problem in Decision Number 3/Pdt.GS/2021/Pn Bit, that PT. Smart Multifinance unilaterally and unlawfully carried out withdrawals and confiscations forcing consumer-owned vehicles. It is suspected that the consumer fiduciary guarantee certificate is not registered because in the defendant’s answer there was no evidence of a fiduciary agreement the object in question has been created. Fiduciary guarantee not registered giving rise to creditors not having priority rights or preference rights and no has executorial rights and the agreement is only a private deed which does not have executorial power, so the creditor is only a creditor concurrent, namely creditors who have the same position as other creditors in fulfilling its receivables, and has no character droit de suit attached to the object of the fiduciary guarantee (K.C.D. Lestari., et al., 2020). Thus, creditors cannot carry out execution directly the object of fiduciary guarantee, as based on Article 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Finance No. 130/PMK.010/2012 that finance companies are prohibited from implementing execution of the fiduciary guarantee object if there is no fiduciary guarantee certificate.

Legal relationship between debtor (plaintiff) and creditor (defendant) in the Decision Number 3/Pdt.GS/2021/Pn Bit is a financing agreement in the form of sale and lease back. It can be seen that the vehicle owner first sold it to the company financing and then renting the vehicle back from the company financing. Thus, the ownership status of the vehicle after the sale changes from the seller (who then becomes the renter) to the buyer (finance company or lessor). Financing agreement in form sale and lease back that way not directly bound by fiduciary guarantees because the ownership rights to the objects have been transferred to the company.

Meanwhile, the judge considered that the execution had been carried out by the defendant is an unlawful act as stated in Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 regarding the execution of fiduciary guarantees. The judge ruled that the execution was without show a valid court order of execution or at least showing a fiduciary guarantee certificate to the plaintiff as a consumer is Act against the law. Thus, the judge’s consideration incoherent because refers to the provisions for the execution of fiduciary guarantees, where as in casu agreement what both parties do is an agreement in form sale and lease back which is not bound by fiduciary guarantees.

The judge also considered the use of third parties or debt collector in carrying out the execution of the object of the dispute is an unlawful act. Legally, debt collector works on the authority granted by the creditor or company financing in the process of collecting debts from debtors. Based on the granting of power of attorney what is meant must also be in accordance with Article 1792 of the Civil Code. Grant of power becomes the basis for a legal relationship that allows a person to act in the name of another person with sufficient legal force. As well as debt collector as the party receiving power of attorney by the creditor must have legal power to carry it out actions carried out for and on behalf of the company leasing.

Based on Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 35/POJK.05/2018 of 2018 concerning the Implementation of Financing Company Business, here in after abbreviated as POJK Number 35/POJK.05/2018 regulates cooperation between finance companies and other parties in carrying out collection functions to debtors. The use of debt collector services can be linked to this provision because debt collectors are often other parties who collaborate with finance companies to collect outstanding payments from debtors. Article 48 paragraph (1) POJK no. 35/POJK.05/2018 states that “Finance companies can collaborate with other parties to carry out collection functions to debtors.” This article authorizes finance companies to collaborate with other parties, such as debt collectors, to carry out collection functions to debtors who have outstanding payments. In collaboration with other parties, finance companies are obliged to express their cooperation in the form of a written agreement as based on Article 48 paragraph (2) POJK No. 35/POJK.05/2018.

The conditions for cooperation between finance companies and other parties must be met the provisions of Article 48 paragraph (3) namely that the other party is in the form of a legal entity, another party has permission from the competent authority, and the other party has the resources human beings who have obtained certification in the field of billing from a Certification Institute Profession in the field of financing. This confirms that finance companies must working with debt collector who has valid qualifications and permits. Besides that, the finance company is obliged to take full responsibility for all impacts arise from collaboration with other parties and are required to carry out regular evaluations as based on Article 48 paragraphs (4) and (5). Thus, the use of services debt collector by finance companies must comply with the provisions regulated in Article 48 POJK No. 35/POJK.05/2018 to ensure compliance and protection for all parties involved.

Referring to Bank Indonesia Regulations (PBI) and Bank Indonesia Circular Letters (SEBI) that there are ethics or obligations that must be adhered to by financing institutions and/or service provider debt collector in carrying out the billing process as regulated in SEBI Number 14/17/DASP dated 7 June 2012 concerning amendments to the Circular Letter Bank Indonesia Number 11/10/DASP dated 13 April 2009 concerning Implementation of Activities Payment tool using a card, which contains:

1. When billing, debt collector use an official identity card issued by the credit card issuer, which is accompanied by a photo of yourself concerned;
2. Collection is prohibited using threats, violence and/or actions that embarrass credit card holders;
3. Billing is not carried out using physical pressure or pressure verbal;
4. Billing is prohibited from being made to parties other than the credit card holder;
5. If billing is carried out using communication facilities, this is prohibited continuously in a disruptive manner;
6. Billing can only be done at the billing address or domicile credit card holders;
7. Billing can only be done from 08.00 to 20.00 time area of the Credit card holder’s address; And
8. Billing outside the place and/or time mentioned above can only be done on the basis of approval and/or agreement with the credit card holder first

As there are ethics that must be adhered to by debt collector in the billing process debt, there are also things that need to be considered, namely collection by service debt collector can only be done if the quality of the bill is included in the quality of bad credit based on collectibility criteria in accordance with Bank Indonesia regulations governing credit quality. Referring to Financial Services Authority Regulation Number 6/POJK.07/2022 concerning Consumer and Community Protection in the Financial Services Sector. Company mandatory financing prevents third parties or debt collector billing with behavior that could harm consumers. Article 7 paragraph (1) states that “PUJK is obligated prevent Directors, Board of Commissioners, Employees, and/or third parties who work for or representing PUJK’s interests from self-enriching or self-benefiting behavior or other parties; and/or abuse existing authority, opportunities or facilities to him because of his position or position, which results in harm to consumers.” Then Article 7 paragraph (2) also states that “PUJK is obliged to have and implement code of ethics for Consumer and Community Protection that has been established by each PUJK”. When a third party makes an error or negligence, then the company financing must be responsible.

Execution of fiduciary guarantee objects by debt collector upon granting authority from the company for financing, you can ask for help from the police. This is based on the Regulations Chief of Police of the Republic of Indonesia Number 8 of 2011 concerning Execution Security Fiduciary Guarantee. According to Aswanto, “Regarding the execution of fiduciary object guarantees, it is important confirmed by the Court, a fiduciary agreement is a legal relationship that is civil (private). Therefore, the authority of the police is only limited secure the course of execution when necessary, not as part of the executor’s side, unless there is an action that contains criminal elements, then new police officers has the authority to enforce criminal law” (Lulu Anjasari, 2024). It is intended to safeguard and secure the execution of fiduciary guarantees, for the sake of implementation carrying out the execution of fiduciary guarantees safely, orderly, smoothly and efficiently accountable.

In the case discussed, the defendant on Tuesday 13 July 2021 at around 15:00 WITA, the plaintiff’s younger brother, Rusdy Badu, was driving the vehicle that was the object of the fiduciary guarantee, namely a Panther turbo touring car, plate number DB 1833 CL, precisely in front of the GPDI Eklesia Primkopabri Girian Indah, 2 debt collectors who claimed to be from the defendant, blocked the plaintiff’s vehicle and insisted that they take the car which was the object of the fiduciary guarantee to the PT company office. Smart Multifinance resulted in an argument between the plaintiff’s younger brother and the debt collector who forced him to take the vehicle without showing valid identification and documents. That, then the two debt collectors were forced to take the vehicle to the defendant’s office with one debt collector entering the plaintiff’s car and another person accompanying him on a motorbike.

Regarding the form and procedures for withdrawing vehicles which are the object of collateral This fiduciary should be carried out by the defendant in a manner that is justified according to law. The defendant’s actions used debt collector in carrying out execution being forced and without showing valid documents is an unlawful act. The judge decided that the execution of the car was the object of the dispute without a valid court letter or at least a fiduciary certificate is an unlawful act and states use of third parties or debt collector in execution is an act against the law.

1. Legal Protection for Consumers in Disputes with Forced Withdrawal of Fiduciary Guarantees By Debt Collector

Protection generally means protecting something from dangerous things, something this could be in the form of interests or objects or goods, in addition to protection also contains the meaning of protection given by someone to someone else weaker. Thus, legal protection can also be interpreted as everything efforts to ensure legal certainty to provide protection for rights as a citizen is not violated and those who violate it will get it be subject to sanctions in accordance with applicable regulations (Akbar Rakhmatullah, 2016). Based on Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer Protection, hereinafter abbreviated to UU PK, explains that what is meant by consumer is “any person who uses goods and/or services available in society, whether for the benefit of oneself, family or person others or other living creatures and not to be traded.” As in article 1 number 1 of the PK Law, states that consumer protection is “everything efforts to ensure legal certainty to provide protection to consumer.” It can be interpreted that consumer protection is a series of efforts and mechanisms implemented by the government, non-governmental organizations, and other organizations to protect consumer rights and ensure that they obtain security, comfort and fairness in the use of goods or services.

1. Isnaeni expressed his opinion regarding legal protection, he stated that: “Basically, the issue of legal protection in terms of its source can be divided into two (2) types, namely “external” legal protection and “internal” legal protection” (Moch. Isnaeni, 2016). The essence of internal legal protection, basically the legal protection in question is packaged by the parties themselves when making an agreement, where when drafting or creating contract clauses, both parties want their interests to be accommodated on the basis of an agreement. Likewise, efforts are made to prevent all types of risks through filing through clauses which are packaged on an agreed basis, so that with these clauses the parties will obtain balanced legal protection based on their mutual agreement. Regarding internal legal protection, such can only be realized by the parties, when their legal position is relatively equal in the sense that the parties have relatively balanced bargaining power, so that based on the principle of freedom of contract, each of the contracting parties has the freedom to express their wishes according to their interests. This pattern is used as a basis when the parties assemble the clauses of the agreement they are working on, so that the legal protection of each party can be realized directly on their initiative (Moch. Isnaeni, 2016). External legal protection created by the authorities through regulations for the interests of weak parties, in accordance with the essence of laws and regulations which must not be one-sided and partial, proportionally must also be given balanced legal protection as early as possible to other parties (Moch. Isnaeni, 2016).

Regarding the internal legal protection described above with problems use of services debt collector in the forced withdrawal of fiduciary guarantees by PT. Smart Multifinance, then actually when making purchases and using services the fiduciary guarantee should be for both parties, in this case the creditor and debtor together and make an agreement regarding the clause agreement which is then agreed upon each party to regulate the running of the financing agreement. Agreement these are made with clauses that are equally beneficial to both parties. If you adhere to M. Isnaeni’s theory regarding internal legal protection, So it is more based on when the agreement was made by both parties, namely the creditor and the debtor, where when making contract clauses, both parties agree on a clause that is profitable and does not harm both parties carry out the agreement.

Based on the case that occurred in Decision Number 5/Pdt.GS/2021/Pn Bit, Internal legal protection has been carried out by the parties at the time of implementation credit agreement between creditor and debtor. Starting from applying for a credit facility up to liquid credit, by making an agreement between the parties then followed by a financing agreement sale and lease back. Based on agreement financing agreed upon by the plaintiff (debtor) with the defendant (creditor) It is agreed that a breach of contract is an event of negligence or breach of contract (breach of contract). As in the financing agreement between debtor and creditor in Article 23 explains that if any or all of the breach of contract occurs then the company has the right to immediately carry out any and/or all legal remedies. Furthermore, Article 23 paragraph (23.2) states that “where necessary, ask for help authorities, government agencies and/or other parties so that the debtor starts at that time must immediately stop all forms of use of the goods.” Referring based on the judge’s consideration, considering that one of the clauses in the agreement financing dated December 3, 2019, it was emphasized that there was an event If there is a breach of contract, the legal process will be resolved through the Court Office Country.

Based on Article 23 paragraph (23.2), it provides a basis for creditors to take action to withdraw the collateral object by involving the authorities, however the action must still be in accordance with other provisions in the agreement, including clauses dispute resolution. Despite the defendant’s forced withdrawal, based on a default or breach of contract by the debtor, but must comply with existing dispute resolution clauses. If it refers to the judge’s consideration which states that in the agreement there is a clause that contains requirements settlement through the court, then unilateral withdrawal action by the creditor can considered invalid. The creditor should submit this default issue to district court appointed in the agreement to obtain a prior decision withdraw the collateral object. Therefore, with the provisions that the settlement must go through court, then forced withdrawal is carried out without going through court which is contrary to the dispute resolution clause, then it can be considered an unlawful act. Thus, the debtor can also file a lawsuit in district court if you feel you have been harmed by arbitrary actions creditors.

Furthermore, it is related to external legal protection in problems this is in accordance with M. Isnaeni’s theory, namely legal protection created by rulers through regulations for the interests of weak parties. External legal protection prepared by legislators, to anticipate exploitation carried out by one of the financing companies that basically owns it bargaining position who is superior to his colleagues, is deemed necessary by the government, so that the weak party still make a reasonable profit. While using the contract as a vehicle the commercial he was driving (Moch. Isnaeni, 2017).

The form of external protection for debtors is reflected in the object registration process as well as the guarantee bond contained in the fiduciary guarantee deed in accordance with Article 13 paragraph (2) of the Law JF stated that the fiduciary guarantee was recorded in the registration book of the Registration Office Fiduciary. Having this registration can also fulfill it principle of publicity which is one of the main principles of material guarantee law in accordance with the law. Provision this aims to ensure that the objects used as objects are truly goods belonging to the debtor or fiduciary. Furthermore, in Article 14 paragraph (3) of the JF Law states that the guarantee is born when the fiduciary guarantee is registered. Can be interpreted that if the fiduciary guarantee has not been registered then the creditor does not have any rights fiduciary guarantees include the right to carry out execution against the object pledged as collateral, this provides legal certainty and at the same time legal protection to the parties through the fiduciary registration agency.

Based on Constitutional Court Decision No. 2/PUU-XIX/2021 which states that execution is possible submitted to the district court is an alternative, if there is no breach of contract agreement between creditors and debtors, the execution of fiduciary guarantees must not be carried out alone request assistance from the district court. The Constitutional Court’s decision can be interpreted as providing something protection for debtors, which is if the debtor is late in paying installments or if you have defaulted, then the creditor cannot immediately carry out execution. However, there must be an agreement regarding default by both parties or can be done by voluntary surrender of the object fiduciary guarantee made by the debtor. If there is no agreement between the parties then the execution must be carried out within the court’s knowledge.

In accordance with the problems discussed in consumer cases with PT. Smart Multifinance in Decision No. 5/Pdt.GS/2021/Pn Bit, that the creditor unilaterally directly withdraw the collateral object using the service debt collector which where the debtor feels disadvantaged because of the method debt collector which is not appropriate with procedures. Forced withdrawal of fiduciary collateral carried out by debt collector as creditors is a violation of the law and is considered an act against legal because it was carried out without showing a fiduciary certificate. This is contradictory with Minister of Finance Regulation No.130 / PMK.010/2012 and its requirements Article 30 JF Law (Novia Dwi Khariati, 2020). Consideration of the panel of judges examining the case aquo above says that regarding the defendant’s actions through his messenger debt collector one who takes or does forced execution of the object of dispute without applicable procedures is an act is against the law and results in major losses to the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is sentenced to return the object of dispute and pay compensation losses that the plaintiff has experienced while the object of the dispute is with the defendant. Based on other considerations, it is stated that action debt collector defendant’s representative who neglected the plaintiff’s family was in conflict with the principle consumer safety as stated in Article 2 of the PK Law so that action is taken this is an unlawful act.

Based on analysis, case number 5/Pdt.GS/PN Bit, it is known that the legal relationship between the debtor and creditor is not bound by the financing agreement fiduciary guarantee because it uses a financing agreement in the form of sale and lease back. Therefore, the guarantee underlying this agreement adheres to the concept of guarantee general in accordance with Article 1131 and Article 1132 of the Civil Code. The creditor’s right of execution vehicles are carried out through general procedures in accordance with the provisions in the Civil Code. The creditor must first provide official notification (subpoena) to the debtor regarding negligence or default in accordance with Article 1238 of the Civil Code.

Referring to Article 196 HIR/Article 207 RBg which states that: “execution is only can be done based on a court decision that has permanent legal force.” In accordance with this, the creditor must submit an application to the court to obtain a decision validating the right to execute the vehicle. If In this case the debtor still does not fulfill his obligations, the chairman of the district court will order the bailiff to carry out the execution, which can take the form of confiscation and vehicle sales. If creditors use services debt collector still carry out forcible execution of vehicles and not in accordance with applicable procedures, then in accordance with Article 1365 of the Civil Code that every person who commits an act violates the law and causes harm to others who are obliged to compensate the loss. The debtor can claim compensation if a forced withdrawal is carried out invalid or unlawful.

Based on Article 4 of the PK Law which provides consumer rights, including rights for comfort, security and safety in using goods and/or services. The debtor in this agreement is considered a consumer who has the right to receive legal protection. If consumers feel disadvantaged by the creditor’s actions arbitrary, then in accordance with Article 45 paragraph (1) of the PK Law which states that: “Every consumer who is harmed can sue the business actor through the institution tasked with resolving disputes between consumers and business actors or through the judiciary who are in the general justice environment.” This lawsuit can be filed through the agency resolve consumer disputes or go directly to court. Thus, consumers have legal remedies to demand compensation and obtain justice if rights they are violated.

1. CONCLUSION

Based on the discussion described above, it can be concluded as follows:

1. The use of debt collector services is legal and can be used by finance companies in the collection process. However, we still pay attention to billing ethics in accordance with SEBI and PBI regulations, and do not violate the provisions for executing fiduciary guarantees as regulated in the Fiduciary Guarantee Law. The execution of the fiduciary guarantee object can be carried out by the creditor himself with the services of a debt collector if there is a default agreement between the parties or by voluntary surrender by the debtor. Case No. 5/Pdt.GS/2021/Pn Bit, shows that the act of forcibly withdrawing a fiduciary guarantee object by a debt collector and carried out without showing a court execution letter or at least showing a valid fiduciary guarantee certificate was declared an unlawful act by the court, because it was not in accordance with applicable procedures and ethics.
2. Legal protection for consumers in disputes over the forced withdrawal of fiduciary guarantees by debt collectors is carried out based on internal and external legal protection. Internal legal protection, in this case, is packaged by the parties themselves when making an agreed agreement, based on the principle of freedom of contract and does not conflict with Article 1337 of the Civil Code. External legal protection is found in the Fiduciary Guarantee Law which states that a new fiduciary guarantee is born when a fiduciary guarantee is registered. If the fiduciary guarantee has not been registered, the creditor does not yet have fiduciary security rights, including the right to execute the object being guaranteed. Apart from that, external legal protection is also contained in the Consumer Protection Law which regulates consumer rights and provides protection against actions that are detrimental to consumers.

REFERENCES

1. Christiawan, Rio., and Januar Agung Saputera. 2022. Development and Practice of Fiduciary Guarantees: Equipped with reviews of various Constitutional Court decisions regarding fiduciary guarantees. Depok: Rajawali Pres.
2. Isnaeni, Moch. 2016. Introduction to Property Guarantee Law. Surabaya: PT. Revka Petra Media.
3. Isnaeni, Moch. 2017. A Diorama of Contract Law. Surabaya: Revka Petra Media.
4. Bouzen, R., & Ashibly, A. Implementation of the Execution of Fiduciary Guarantees for Debtors Who Default after the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, Journal of Legal Ideas. 2021; 03(02): 137-148.
5. Khariati, Novia Dwi. Consumer Legal Protection for Forced Vehicle Towing by Debt Collector. Legal Perspectives. 2020 20(2): 347-368. 2020.
6. Lestari, KCD, I Nyoman Putu Budiartha, and Ni Made Puspasutari Ujiti. Disappearance of Objects Unregistered Fiduciary Guarantees. Legal Analogy Journal. 2020. 2(3): 383-387.
7. Lutungan, Sabina League. Validity of Evidence of Short Message Service (SMS) and Letters Electronics in Criminal Cases. Lex Crimen. 2013. 2(2): 133-142.
8. Munawir, La Ode., Eliyanto Eliyanto, and Suriani Bt Tolo, Legal Effects on Guarantees Fiduciaries Executed Without the Approval of the Fiduciary Giver in the Legal Area of Kendari City. Jatiswara. 2022. 37(3): 280-289.
9. Ramadhani, Fahmi Ali. Consumer Legal Protection Against Recall and Confiscation Fiduciary Collateral Objects That Are Not Registered by Creditors. Journal of Law and Humanity. 2021. 15(1): 51-66.
10. Sopamena, Ronald Fadly. “Eksekusi Jaminan Oleh Debt Collector Sebagai Akibat Wanprestasi Dalam Perjanjian Fidusia”. Bacarita Law Journal. 2021. 2 (1): 17-24.
11. Rakhmatullah, Akbar. 2016. Legality of Motor Vehicle Execution by PT. Adira Finance in a Financing Agreement with Fiduciary Guarantee. Thesis. (Jember: Legal Studies Program, Faculty of Law, Jember University).
12. Lulu Anjasari, Eksekusi Jaminan Objek Fidusia Harus Melalui Pengadilan Negeri; 2022. Humas MKRI. https://www.mkri.id/index.php?page=web.Berita&id=18015&menu=2 . Diakses 14 Mei 2024.