Forced Repossession of Vehicles by Debt Collectors and Its Implications for Consumer Protection after the Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.59525/rechtsvinding.v3i2.1162Keywords:
Vehicle repossession, Debt collector, Fiduciary security, Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019Abstract
Forced repossession of vehicles by debt collectors in public spaces continues to occur despite the Constitutional Court Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, which affirms that the execution of fiduciary security may not be carried out unilaterally and must follow lawful procedures. This situation creates legal uncertainty for consumers and increases the risk of intimidation and violence in financing practices. This article examines the implications of the decision for consumer protection and law enforcement by assessing the gap between legal norms and practices in the field. This study employs a normative juridical method by analyzing statutory regulations, court decisions, and comparative evaluations of repossession practices, supported by mass media information and regulatory reports from Otoritas Jasa Keuangan (OJK) and Badan Perlindungan Konsumen Nasional (BPKN). The findings indicate that the Constitutional Court’s decision has transformed fiduciary execution by restricting creditors from forcibly seizing vehicles from debtors; however, weak supervision, limited understanding among law enforcement officials, and the involvement of uncertified third-party debt collectors continue to create opportunities for forced repossession practices. This study concretely identifies a gap between the provisions of Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019 and field practices, as forced repossession by debt collectors still occurs despite the requirement that fiduciary execution be conducted through the debtor’s consent or a court order. This gap arises from the absence of national standard operating procedures for law enforcement officers, weak oversight by the OJK over the use of debt collectors, limited police understanding of fiduciary execution, and low levels of consumer legal literacy. Therefore, this study emphasizes the need for technical regulations governing the operational procedures of fiduciary execution and the strict enforcement of administrative sanctions, including fines, license suspension, and operational bans, to ensure that constitutional provisions are implemented effectively and consistently in practice.
References
Aprilianti, R. (2021). Perlindungan hukum terhadap debitur dalam eksekusi jaminan fidusia pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum, 28(2), 243–260.
Arifin, Z., & Karim, A. (2022). Eksekusi objek jaminan fidusia setelah putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Jurnal Konstitusi, 19(1), 89–108.
Darmawan, A. (2020). Penegakan hukum terhadap penarikan paksa kendaraan oleh debt collector. Jurnal Yudisial, 13(2), 175–192.
Hakim, L. (2021). Kepastian hukum dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi fidusia di Indonesia. Jurnal Rechtsvinding, 10(3), 357–374.
Hapsari, D., & Prasetyo, B. (2023). Perlindungan konsumen dalam perjanjian pembiayaan kendaraan bermotor. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 18(1), 45–62.
Hidayat, R. (2022). Keadilan prosedural dalam putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi terkait jaminan fidusia. Jurnal Konstitusi, 19(4), 623–642.
Iskandar, M. (2020). Disharmonisasi pelaksanaan eksekusi fidusia pasca putusan MK. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 17(2), 211–228.
Lestari, T. (2021). Kesadaran hukum masyarakat terhadap perlindungan konsumen pembiayaan kendaraan bermotor. Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, 16(1), 77–92.
Mahendra, Y., & Putri, N. (2024). Efektivitas perlindungan konsumen dalam praktik penagihan utang. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 9(2), 101–119.
Nasution, B. J. (2023). Implikasi putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi terhadap eksekusi jaminan fidusia. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 12(2), 201–219.
Nugraha, F. (2020). Eksekusi jaminan fidusia dalam perspektif negara hukum. Jurnal Yuridika, 35(3), 487–505.
Prabowo, D. (2021). Perlawanan terhadap aparat dalam proses eksekusi fidusia sebagai tindak pidana. Jurnal Hukum Pidana, 7(1), 33–49.
Prasetyo, E., & Lubis, M. (2022). Penegakan hukum terhadap pelanggaran eksekusi jaminan fidusia. Jurnal Supremasi Hukum, 11(2), 225–242.
Putra, R. A. (2021). Perlindungan debitur pasca putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 18/PUU-XVII/2019. Jurnal Wawasan Yuridika, 5(2), 143–161.
Rahman, A. (2023). Disharmonisasi pemahaman aparat dalam penanganan fidusia. Jurnal Hukum Acara Perdata, 4(1), 19–35.
Regus, M., Yulianti, R., & Prakoso, D. (2022). Keadilan substantif dalam pelaksanaan jaminan fidusia. Jurnal Rechtsvinding, 11(1), 45–62.
Rizal, M., & Sulaiman, A. (2021). Konflik hukum dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi fidusia pasca putusan MK. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 18(3), 355–370.
Sari, I. P. (2020). Kedudukan sertifikat fidusia sebagai titel eksekutorial setelah putusan MK. Jurnal Hukum dan Pembangunan, 50(4), 889–905.
Sinaga, R., Samosir, H., & Pardede, E. (2024). Perlindungan konsumen dalam pembiayaan kendaraan bermotor di Indonesia. Jurnal Hukum Bisnis, 9(1), 1–18.
Situmorang, J. (2021). Penarikan paksa kendaraan bermotor dalam perspektif hukum perlindungan konsumen. Jurnal Justitia, 14(2), 98–114.
Suryani, L., & Wibowo, A. (2022). Praktik debt collector dan implikasinya terhadap rasa keadilan masyarakat. Jurnal Sosio Yustisia, 6(1), 57–73.
Utami, R. (2023). Efektivitas pengawasan OJK terhadap perusahaan pembiayaan. Jurnal Hukum Ekonomi, 8(2), 141–158.
Wahyudi, D. (2020). Disharmonisasi pemahaman aparat terhadap eksekusi fidusia. Jurnal Yudisial, 13(3), 291–308.
Wardani, S. (2021). Eksekusi jaminan fidusia dalam perspektif hak asasi manusia. Jurnal HAM, 12(1), 65–81.
Wijaya, T., & Kurniawan, A. (2022). Kepastian hukum pasca putusan MK dalam perjanjian pembiayaan. Jurnal Hukum Ius Constituendum, 7(2), 289–305.
Yuliani, D. (2020). Peran aparat kepolisian dalam penanganan sengketa fidusia. Jurnal Kriminologi Indonesia, 16(1), 22–38.
Zainuddin, A. (2021). Penafsiran wanprestasi dalam eksekusi jaminan fidusia. Jurnal Hukum Perdata, 6(2), 101–118.
Zulfikar, M. (2023). Perlindungan hukum bagi konsumen terhadap tindakan debt collector. Jurnal Consumer Law, 5(1), 1–17.
Kompas. (2025). Fenomena penarikan paksa kendaraan dan implikasi hukumnya. Kompas Research & Development Report.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2020). Consumer protection in financial services. UNCTAD Law Review, 4(1), 15–32.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Alfinto Rizky Susanto, Muhammad Rifqi Rifa’i, Ahmad Muhaimin, Friska Nova Hamidan, Muhammad Sahwal, Savina Distya Ifaza
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
