Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Fidusia merupakan istilah yang sudah lama dikenal dalam bahasa Indonesia: Undang-undang No.42 Tahun 1999 sudah menggunakan istilah fidusia. Dengan demikian, istilah fidusia sudah merupakan istilah resmi dalam dunia hukum kita. Akan tetapi, kadang-kadang untuk fidusia ini dalam bahasa Indonesia disebut juga dengan istilah penyerahan hak milik secara kepercayaan. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Republik Indonesia Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019 tanggal 6 Januari 2020 lahir karena adanya permohonan pengujian undang-undang (Judicial Review) yang diajukan oleh pasangan suami-istri, Apriliani Dewi dan Suri Agung Prabowo, terhadap ketentuan Pasal 15 ayat (2) dan ayat (3) Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 tentang Jaminan Fidusia. Kepastian hukum eksekusi jaminan fidusia bedasarkan Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 berlaku Pasal 29 dapat dilakukan beberapa cara; a. titel eksekutorial pada sertifikat fidusia; b. penerima fidusia dapat melakukan penjualan benda yang menjadi jaminan objek jaminan atas atas kekuasaan penerima fidusia melalui pelelangan umum dan mengambil pelunasannya piutanganya dari hasil penjualan; c. penjualan dibawah tangan. Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No.18/PUU-XVII/2019 berimplikasi secara langsung dan merubah prosedur terhadap penyerahan objek jaminan fidusia. Dalam penulisan ini metode Penelitian jurnal ini dilakukan dengan menggunakan penelitian kepustakaan dan penelitian hukum. dengan melakukan pengelolaan data-datanya yang berasal dari bahan-bahan kepustakaan. Penelitian kepustakaan ini untuk mengumpulkan dan mengelola data-data sekunder yang berasal dari bahan-bahan hukum.

---

Fiducia is a term that has long been known in the Indonesian language: Law No.42 of 1999 already uses the term fiduciary. Thus, the term fiduciary is already an official term of law. However, for this fiduciary meaning in Indonesian is also referred to as the transfer of property rights by trust. The Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dated January 6, 2020 was issued initiated by a petition for judicial review submitted by spouse named Apriliani Dewi and Suri Agung Prabowo, related to the Article 15 paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of Law Number 42 Year 1999 regarding Fiduciary Transfer of OwnershipThe legal certainty of the execution of fiduciary guarantly based on Law Number 42 of 1999 applies Article 29, which can be carried out in several ways; a. executive title on fiduciary certificate; b. the fiduciary ownership can sell the object that is the object of the guarantee on the authority of the fiduciary ownership through a public auction and collect his receivables from the sale proceeds; c. Agreement conducted privately. The decision of the Constitutional Court No.18/PUU-XVII/2019 has direct implications and changes the procedure for the submission of objects fiduciary security. In this thesis, the research method is conducted using literature based research. By managing the data which comes from books and other literatures. This literature research is meaning to collect and manage data which derived from legal sources and other law materials."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai mekanisme pengalihan porsi kepemilikan yang dimiliki oleh nasabah dan mekanisme pengalihan hak sewa kepada pihak ketiga. Lebih lanjut lagi di dalam skripsi ini membahas mengenai kesesusaian antara perjanjian Pembiayaan Pemilikan Rumah (PPR iB) dengan akad MMQ di Bank Muamalat Indonesia dengan Fatwa DSN No : 73/DSN-MUI/XI/2008 tentang Musyarakah Mutanaqishah. Pembiayaan Pemilikan Rumah (PPR iB) dengan menggunakan akad MMQ sedang marak digunakan oleh masyarakat luas, dikarenakan banyak keuntungan yang di dapat dari Pembiayaan Pemilikan Rumah (PPR iB) dengan menggunakan akad MMQ di bandingkan menggunakan akad pembiayaan lainnya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode pendekatan yuridis-normatif. Alat pengumpulan data yang digunakan adalah studi kepustakaan yang dilengkapi dengan wawancara. Pada prinsipnya baik mekanisme maupun ketentuan yang terdapat dalam perjanjian pembiayaan pemilikan rumah dengan akad MMQ yang tedapat di Bank Muamalat Indonesia, telah sesuai dengan ketentuan dalam Fatwa DSN No : 73/DSN-MUI/XI/2008 tentang Musyarakah Mutanaqishah. Untuk pengaturan pengalihan kepada pihak ketiga, nasabah diperbolehkan untuk melakukan pengalihan porsi kepemilikan maupun hak sewa kepada pihak ketiga asalkan telah mendapatkan izin tertulis dari pihak bank. Hal ini merupakan konsekuensi dari adanya hubungan kemitraan antara nasabah dan bank, sehingga segala tindakan nasabah yang berkaitan dengan aset bersama tersebut harus melalui persetujuan dari bank terlebih dahulu.Home financing using MMQ agreement widely use among the public, as it offers many advantages compared with other financing agreements.The focus of this study are about mechanism of transfer of ownership portion of the customer to a third party and the mechanism of the transfer of lease right of customer to a third party. Further more in this study discussed about the compatibility between home financing agreement using MMQ contract in Bank Muamalat Indonesia with Fatwa DSN No : 73/DSN-MUI/XI/2008 on Musyarakah Mutanaqishah. This study using a yuridis-normatif methode. The data used for this study are collected through documents and interviews. There has been a compability between the home financing agreement using MMQ contract in Bank Muamalat Indonesia with Fatwa DSN No : 73/DSN-MUI/XI/2008 on Musyarakah Mutanaqishah. The customer is allowed to perform the transfer of ownership or leasehold portions to third parties as long as they got permission from bank, as a partner in this MMQ agreement. This is a consequence of the relationship between bank and customer as a partner, so that any costumer action that related to the asset, should be through bank approval."

"Skripsi ini menganalisis Putusan Nomor 07/RV/2012/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst jo. 847K/Pdt.Sus/2012, dengan menggunakan metode penelitian yuridis normatif dengan metode analisis kualitatif. Putusan ini mengenai tumpang tindih jaminan fidusia atas 2 (dua) buah mesin yaitu mesin DMF Sus Tank tahun 2003 dan Mesin Dry Process Synthetic tahun 1997, yang dimiliki oleh PT. Samwoo Indonesia sebagai debitor pailit. Tumpang tindih diketahui oleh kurator pada saat proses verifikasi aset. Masing-masing mesin memiliki alur cerita yang berbeda. Pada Mesin DMF Sus Tank tahun 2003, terjadi pembebanan fidusia ulang terhadap mesin tersebut. Oleh sebab itu, maka timbul permasalahan mengenai status kepemilikan objek jaminan fidusia, siapa pihak yang berwenang untuk mengeksekusi 2 (dua) buah mesin di atas, dan siapa pihak yang berhak didahulukan. Untuk menentukan hal tersebut, dapat merujuk kepada Pasal 17 dan Pasal 28 Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Jaminan Fidusia. Namun, ternyata 2 (dua) pasal ini saling bertentangan dalam menentukan boleh tidaknya fidusia ulang. Sedangkan pada Mesin Dry Process Synthetic tahun 1997, terjadi pengalihan objek jaminan fidusia ke kreditor baru tanpa dilakukan pendaftaran. Sebagaimana diketahui bahwa pendaftaran fidusia menjadi salah satu faktor penentu status hak kepemilikan, kewenangan eksekusi, dan hak didahulukan.

---

This thesis is analyzing judicial decision number 07/RV/2012/PN.Niaga.Jkt.Pst jo. 847 K/Pdt.Sus/2012, by using normative judicial research and qualitative analysis. In this judicial decision, the curator found double fiduciary on 2 (two) machine owned by PT. Samwoo Indonesia as a bankrupt debtor. An overlap is known by the curator at the verification asset process. The machines DMF Sus Tank year 2003 and Dry Process Synthetic year 1997. Each machine has a different storyline. First, there is a double fiduciary on DMF Sus Tank year 2003. Therefore, it has raised the question of the ownership status, also who has the rights to execute the machine, and who has the preference rights. To determine that, we can refer to Article 17 and Article 28 of Law No. 42 of 1999 Fiduciary. However, it turns out that 2 (two) of this article may contradict each other. Further more, Dry Process Synthetic year 1997 is transferred to a new creditor without any registration. As we know, fiduciary recipient who have registered will acquire benefits such as the executorial power if the debtor is default and will also make them as preferred creditors, while fiduciary recipient who have not registered serve as concurrent creditors"

"[Penulisan skripsi ini menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan dengan data sekunder sebagai sumber datanya. Skripsi ini bertujuan untuk meneliti mengenai jual beli tanah dan bangunan yang diatur dalam peraturan perundang-undangan serta kedudukan dan kekuatan mengikat Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli Lunas (PPJB Lunas) dan Kuasa Jual dalam hal pengalihan hak milik atas tanah (beserta bangunan apabila diperjanjikan). Dalam skripsi ini, dianalisis satu kasus dengan empat putusan dari Pengadilan Tingkat Pertama sampai dengan Tingkat Peninjauan Kembali. Dari analisis tersebut, dapat diketahui bahwa ada dua pendapat hakim yang saling bertentangan. Pendapat pertama adalah dengan PPJB Lunas dan Kuasa Jual maka telah terjadinya peralihan hak milik atas tanah dan bangunan sedangkan pendapat kedua adalah dengan PPJB Lunas dan Kuasa Jual belum terjadi peralihan hak milik atas tanah dan bangunan. Sebagai hasil penelitian dapat disimpulkan bahwa kedudukan dan kekuatan mengikat PPPJB Lunas dan Kuasa Jual telah mengalihkan hak milik atas tanah dan bangunan apabila dalam kenyataannya sudah terjadi perbuatan hukum dimana pembeli telah melakukan pembayaran dan telah menerima penyerahan serta menguasai tanah dan bangunan tersebut, sedangkan penjual telah menyerahkan Kuasa Jual dan tanah serta bangunan itu sendiri kepada pembeli dan penjual telah menerima pembayaran sehingga perbuatan tersebut memenuhi unsur terang, tunai dan riil sebagaimana dasar hukum jual beli tanah yang berlaku pada saat ini, serta memenuhi syarat materiil jual beli.

---

This thesis was written using literary research method with secondary data as its source of data. This thesis aims to examine the mechanisms sale and purchase of land and building which is regulated in accordance with the laws and regulations and the legal standing and binding of Land and Building Conditional Sale Purchase Agreement in Full Settlement (CSPA in Full Settlement) and Power of Attorney to Sell, in connection with the transfer of right of ownership over the land (and building if agreed). This thesis will primarily analyze one legal case which went to produce four court decisions, leveling from the Court of First Instance until the Supreme Court. From this analysis, it is discovered that there are two judge’s opinion, which contradicts one to another. The first opinion is that, the CSPA in Full Settlement and Power of Attorney to Sell have transferred the right of ownership over land and building, while the second opinion is that the CSPA in Full Settlement and Power of Attorney to Sell have not transferred the right of ownership over land and building yet. As a result of this study, it can be concluded that the legal standing and binding of CSPA in Full Settlement and Power of Attorney to Sell have transferred the right of ownership over land and building when the facts of the case show that it had happened a juridical action in which the buyer has made payment and has conducted the acceptance, and possessed the land and buildings, while the seller has granted the Power of Attorney to Sell and delivered the land and building to the buyer and received the payment for it. Such action would therefore qualified for a sale and purchase that is “terang”, “tunai” and “riil”, which is the basic of legality of the sale and purchase of the land under the prevailing laws, as well as the fulfilling the material requirement of sales and purchase.

, This thesis was written using literary research method with secondary data as its source of data. This thesis aims to examine the mechanisms sale and purchase of land and building which is regulated in accordance with the laws and regulations and the legal standing and binding of Land and Building Conditional Sale Purchase Agreement in Full Settlement (CSPA in Full Settlement) and Power of Attorney to Sell, in connection with the transfer of right of ownership over the land (and building if agreed). This thesis will primarily analyze one legal case which went to produce four court decisions, leveling from the Court of First Instance until the Supreme Court. From this analysis, it is discovered that there are two judge’s opinion, which contradicts one to another. The first opinion is that, the CSPA in Full Settlement and Power of Attorney to Sell have transferred the right of ownership over land and building, while the second opinion is that the CSPA in Full Settlement and Power of Attorney to Sell have not transferred the right of ownership over land and building yet. As a result of this study, it can be concluded that the legal standing and binding of CSPA in Full Settlement and Power of Attorney to Sell have transferred the right of ownership over land and building when the facts of the case show that it had happened a juridical action in which the buyer has made payment and has conducted the acceptance, and possessed the land and buildings, while the seller has granted the Power of Attorney to Sell and delivered the land and building to the buyer and received the payment for it. Such action would therefore qualified for a sale and purchase that is “terang”, “tunai” and “riil”, which is the basic of legality of the sale and purchase of the land under the prevailing laws, as well as the fulfilling the material requirement of sales and purchase.

]"