Pelaksanaan eksekusi jaminan fidusia dengan penetapan sita eksekusi Pengadilan Negeri Sleman dalam hal debitur mengalami kredit modal kerja yang macet di PT Bank Perkreditan Rakyat (BPR) Danagung Ramulti Kalasan Sleman
SYAROFI, Mustafa, SH., MS
2008 | Tesis | S2 Magister KenotariatanTujuan penulisan ini adalah untuk menganalisis pelaksanaan eksekusi jaminan fidusia dengan penetapan sita eksekusi Pengadilan Negeri Sleman dalam hal debitur mengalami kredit modal kerja yang macet di PT. Bank Perkreditan Rakyat (BPR) Danagung Ramulti Kalasan Sleman. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yang bersifat empiris. Data yang digunakan adalah data primer dan data sekunder. Penentuan sampel yang akan diambil dalam penelitian ini menggunakan metode non random sampling artinya tidak semua populasi diberi kesempatan untuk menjadi sampel, sedangkan untuk pengumpulan sampel menggunakan teknik purposive sampling, artinya pengambilan subjek bukan berdasarkan strata, random atau daerah, tetapi didasarkan atas adanya tujuan tertentu. Hasil penelitian atas penyelesaian kredit bermasalah yang berakhir pada kredit macet yang dialami oleh PT. Bank Perkreditan Rakyat (BPR) Danagung Ramulti Kalasan Sleman yaitu eksekusi dengan penetapan pengadilan yang merupakan langkah terakhir yang ditempuh oleh kreditur. Ini dilakukan setelah upaya penyelamatan kredit tidak dapat dilakukan lagi, sehingga upaya kreditur untuk mengembalikan kerugian akibat wanprestasi dan menyebabkan terjadinya kredit bermasalah hingga pada akhirnya terjadi kredit macet. Kreditur, dalam hal ini PT. Bank Perkreditan Rakyat Danagung Ramulti Kalasan Sleman tentunya sebagai pihak yang dirugikan. Kreditur menuntut debitur untuk bertanggung jawab atas perbuatannya tersebut secara hukum, dimana kreditur dapat melakukan somasi terhadap debitur, somasi dilakukan oleh pengadilan atas permohonan kreditur. Tentunya kreditur telah melengkapi bukti bahwasanya debitur wanprestasi. Tetapi karena tidak ada reaksi debitur untuk menyelesaikan kewajibannya, maka somasi dilayangkan, sehingga kreditur meminta kepada pengadilan untuk ditegur (annmaning) sampai pada teguran ketiga, tetapi tetap juga diabaikan, sehingga kreditur mengajukan permohonan sita eksekusi penetapan pengadilan untuk mengeksekusi jaminan fidusia. Akibat debitur tidak beritikad baik dan tidak mau menyerahkan obyek jaminan fidusia secara sukarela, bahkan sebagian obyek jaminan tersebut telah berpindah tangan. Pada akhirnya debitur melakukan perlawanan, sehingga kreditur meminta penetapan pengadilan untuk mengeksekusi obyek jaminan tersebut. Karena ada dugaan dalam eksekusi tersebut terjadi hal-hal di luar keinginan kreditur seperti tindakan anarkis, maka dengan bantuan aparat penegak hukum dan alat perlengkapan negara, kreditur tentunya sangat mudah mengatasi hal tersebut. Dengan demikian, obyek jaminan kredit yang masih dikuasai debitur dan yang telah berpindahtangan dapat diambil secara paksa untuk dijual secara lelang eksekusi pengadilan untuk membayar kredit debitur yaitu hutang pokok, bunga, denda, biaya administrasi yang timbul akibat pengurusan proses permohonan penetapan sita eksekusi pengadilan dan biaya lelang.
The objective of the study is to analyze the execution of fiduciary guarantee by confiscation verdict from the Sleman District Court in the case of debtor with non performing working capital loan in PT. Bank Perkreditan Rakyat (BPR) Danagung Ramulti Kalasan Sleman. The study is empiric in nature; the data used herein are primary and secondary data. In determining the sample to be used in the study a non random sampling method is employed. This way, not all parts of the population were given the chance to be sample. In addition, the method by which to collect the sample is purposive sampling, that is to say, the selection of subject is not dependent of strata, random, or region. Instead it was based on the presence of certain purposes. Result of the study on the settlement of non performance loan that ends up to non performing loan suffered by PT. Bank Perkreditan Rakyat (BPR) Danagung Ramulti Kalasan Sleman is that the execution as ordered by the court is the last option taken by the creditor. This last option is taken after the efforts to secure the credit go unsuccessful. As a consequence, with measures taken by the creditor to regain what has been lost as a result of dereliction of duty fail, there is a non performance loan that finally leads to a non performing loan. Creditor, PT. Bank Perkreditan Rakyat Danagung Ramulti Kalasan Sleman in this case, is obviously the party who gets the most loss. The creditor demands the debtor to legally account for his deeds. Subsequently, the creditor is entitled by the law to issue a legal grievance to the debtor. The legal grievance was ordered by the court on the creditor’s request. As a rule, the creditor has already finalized all the required evidence showing that the debtor who has done dereliction of duty. In this case, since there is no response from the debtor to meet his responsibilities, the legal grievance is issued. As a matter of course, the creditor then asks the court to send a warning to the debtor. However, because up to the third warning the debtor ignores what is required of him, the creditor then pleads for the court verdict to execute the fiduciary guarantee, that is to say, to confiscate the object. As a result of the deficiency of good will from the debtor, and of his unwillingness to hand over the object of fiduciary guarantee voluntarily, and of, even, some of the guarantee objects’ having changed hands, the debtor ultimately take legal measures in deviance. The creditor subsequently pleads for the court verdict to execute the guarantee object. Because it is believed by the creditor that there will be some unexpected things, violent and anarchic actions, for example, during the execution of the object, the creditor seeks for help from the law enforcers and the state authority. With this help, the creditor is able to handle this problem. Accordingly, the credit guarantee objects that are still in the hands of the debtor and that have changed hands are entitled by the law to be taken by force to be auctioned as prescribed by the court to pay for the debtor’s unpaid credit that consists of the capital credit, interest, fine, administrative expenses required to cover the administrative process of pleading for the court verdict to execute, and auction expenses.
Kata Kunci : Kredit macet,Eksekusi,Penetapan pengadilan, Non performing loan, execution, court verdict.
