IMPLIKASI HUKUM EKSEKUSI OBJEK JAMINAN FIDUSIA PASCA PUTUSAN MK NOMOR 71/PUU-XIX/2021 DALAM PERSPEKTIF KEADILAN BAGI PARA PIHAK

The execution of the fiduciary object already has a governing law. Still, it does not fully provide justice and also binding legal certainty for the parties, especially for the debtor as a guarantor. In Law No. 42 of 1999 on fiduciary security in Article 30 of the fiduciary law, in addition to being contrary to the 1945 Constitution and in this case the debtor who considers his constitutional rights and/or authority to be harmed by the enactment of the law. This study aims to determine how the execution of fiduciary security after the Constitutional Court decision Number 71/PUU-XIX/2021 and to choose the legal implications for the execution of the object of fiduciary security after the Constitutional Court decision Number 71/PUU-XIX/2021 in the perspective of justice for the parties. In this research method, the author uses normative legal research. The author uses a legislative approach and a case approach, which is equipped with a source of legal material consisting of the 1945 Constitution, the Civil Code, Law Number 42 of 1999 on fiduciary security, and Constitutional Court decision Number 71/PUU-XIX/2021. The result of this study is that in the execution of the fiduciary security object after the MK decision Number 71/PUU-XIX/2021 if the debtor objects to voluntarily surrender the guarantee object, the creditor must apply for execution to the District Court to obtain legal determination. The police are only authorized to secure the execution process if necessary, but not as the executor. Based on Adam Smith's theory of justice as a whole, the implications of the MK decision Number 71/PUU-XIX/2021 are unfair to all parties, especially to creditors.