¹Niken Sarah Dayanti,²Iwan Erar Joesoef

¹Postgraduate Student of Master of Law UPN Veteran Jakarta.

²Lecturer of Master of Law UPN Veteran Jakarta.

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v4-i7-40

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This thesis addressed the issue to examine the legal responsibility of the Collateral Manager as the object fiduciary administrator and how the legal protection effort to the fiduciary recipient is based on the principle of lex specialist derogate lex generalist. This writing is motivated by non-performance of contract settlement as well as acts against the law from the importer to the exporter in an international trade relationship based on credit facilities. The results of the research, the responsibility of the Collateral Manager in conduct of transferred objects should be referred to the mechanism for exercising power based on the principles of Good Corporate Governance through the Collateral Management Agreement. This is to depreciate the risk, in order to the objects cannot be transferred by another party as a Fiduciary. Legal fiduciary recipient has accounts receivable on an object can obtain executorial rights protected by the Law on Fiduciary which is equal as court decisions that has permanent legal force. This research is used normative juridical, through statutory approach and a case approach in the case of the Supreme Court Verdict Number 2239 K/Pdt/2014. Conclusion is based on the principle of lex posterior derogate lex priori, the Judicial Review Verdict Number 997/PK/Pdt/2018 provides permanent legal force and certainty of the executorial rights of the fiduciary recipient over the object of collateral which is still a dispute between the importer and the exporter.

Keywords

Good Corporate Governance, Legal Protection, Fiduciary.

REFERENCES

Book:
1) Ali, Zainuddin. 2008. Metode Penelitian Hukum. Sinar Grafika. Jakarta.

2) Hamdani. 2016. Good Corporate Governance Tinjauan Dalam Praktek Bisnis. Mitra Wacana Media. Jakarta.

3) Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. 2005. Penelitian Hukum. Kencana Prenamedia Group. Jakarta.

4) Rahardjo, Satjipto. 2000. Ilmu Hukum. Cet V. PT. Citra Aditya Bakti. Bandung.
Legislation Resources:
1) Indonesia. Civil Code. Subekti dan R. Tjitrosudibio. PT. Balai Pustaka. Jakarta.

2) ________. Civil Procedure Code

3) ________. Law of the Republic of Indonesia No.42 Tahun 1999 concerning Fiduciary

4) Tangerang District Court of the Republic of Indonesia Verdict Number 270/Pdt.Plw/ 2011/PN.TNG

5) Banten High Court's of the Republic of Indonesia Verdict Number 12/PDT/2014/ PT.BTN

6) Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Verdict Number 2239 K/PDT/2014

7) Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Verdict Number 997/PK/PDT/2018

8) Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Verdict Number. 7011/K/SIP/1974

9) Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia Verdict Number 3609 K/PDT/1985
Paper:
1) Azmani, M. Usman Syahirul. 2017. Analisis Yuridis Pertentangan Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 2206 K/Pdt/2012 Dengan Putusan Peninjauan Kembali Nomor 319 Pk/Pdt/2015 Tentang Sengketa Perdata Menurut Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata Dan Undang-Undang Nomor 42 Tahun 1999 Tentang Jaminan Fidusia, Skripsi Program Studi Ilmu Hukum. Universitas Brawijaya. Malang.

2) Dyani, Vina Akfa. 2017. Pertanggungjawaban Hukum dan Perlindungan Hukum bagi Notaris dalam Membuat Party Acte, Jurnal Hukum No. 1 Vol.2. Magister Kenotariatan Universitas Islam Indonesia. Yogyakarta

VOlUME 04 ISSUE 07 JULY 2021