Keabsahan Perjanjian Fidusia yang Diajukan oleh Debitor yang Tidak Memiliki Hak Atas Objek Jaminan Fidusia (Studi Putusan Nomor 9/PDT/2022/PT BJM)

Abstract

Fiduciary arrangements constitute a modality of collateralization pertinent to movable assets, which are pledged to the creditor while the debtor retains possession of such goods. The provision of fiduciary collateral or the fiduciary guarantor necessitates the involvement of the legitimate owner. Empirically, instances arise wherein debtors present fiduciary collateral without possessing rights to the underlying object of the fiduciary arrangement. The research inquiry is framed around the following questions: (1) What are the requisite criteria for the validation of a fiduciary agreement? (2) What are the legal ramifications stemming from a fiduciary agreement executed by a debtor lacking rights to the fiduciary collateral object? and (3) What legal interpretations can be derived from Civil Decision No.9/PDT/2022/PT BJM?. This thesis employs normative legal research methodologies. The analytical approach adopted is qualitative in nature. The data utilized is derived from secondary sources. The findings of the research indicate that, firstly, the legal prerequisites concerning fiduciary agreements are delineated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, which necessitates the existence of a fiduciary guarantee object along with a duly executed fiduciary guarantee deed. Secondly, when a fiduciary agreement is entered into by a debtor who does not possess rights to the fiduciary guarantee object, the resultant fiduciary guarantee agreement is rendered legally deficient. Such deficiencies culminate in the fiduciary guarantee deed being declared null and void, altering the creditor's status to that of a concurrent creditor, and precluding the creditor from executing the fiduciary guarantee object in the event of default. Thirdly, the rationale provided by the presiding judge in the Banjarmasin High Court Decision Number 9/PDT/2022/PT BJM, when assessed against the principles of justice and legal certainty, reveals that civil case Number 9/PDT/2022/PT BJM lacks appropriateness, as it fails to align with these fundamental values.