Abstract
Parate executive is the primary purpose of establishing Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage Rights to provide solid legal protection for creditors holding mortgage objects. The easy and inexpensive execution process should make the parate executive the leading choice for creditors in auctioning mortgage objects if the debtor defaults. However, in reality, the parate execution could not be carried out properly because of the Supreme Court Decision No. 3210 K/Pdt/1984, in which one of the ratio decidendi in it that the public auction conducted by the Bandung KPKNL is invalid, and this is also supported by book II of the Supreme Court's guidelines which requires fiat execution from the District Court. This paper will explain how the two conflicting legal bases will impact the implementation of parate executives in the field. Keywords: Parate Executie; Mortgage; Land.
Highlights
As part of national development, economic development is one of the efforts to realize just and prosperous people's welfare based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution
Here there is a clash of two conflicting laws, where the UUHT mandates that the Mortgage which is used as collateral to be executed by direct execution (Parate Executie) if the debtor defaults or breaks a promise, but on the other hand, the Supreme Court does not recognize the direct execution without a decision. from the previous District Court
Parate Executie, which is the main goal in UUHT, which aims to provide legal protection to creditors holding Mortgage Objects to feel safe in the credit process, has a solid and transparent legal basis UUHT
Summary
As part of national development, economic development is one of the efforts to realize just and prosperous people's welfare based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. Given the importance of the position of credit funds in the process of economic development, it is appropriate that credit givers and recipients and other related parties receive protection through a vital guarantee rights institution in order to provide legal certainty for all interested parties as an effort to anticipate the emergence of risks for creditors in the future, which will come For this business, you can use banking services.. 4 of 1996, concerning Mortgage on Land and Objects Related to Land (abbreviated UUHT), could not be implemented as expected by the Bank as creditor due to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia (MARI) Decision. It turns out that MARI's decision is supported by Book II of the Guidelines for the Aguag Court of the Republic of Indonesia, which requires fiat execution from the District Court. So here there is a clash of two conflicting laws, where the UUHT mandates that the Mortgage which is used as collateral to be executed by direct execution (Parate Executie) if the debtor defaults or breaks a promise, but on the other hand, the Supreme Court does not recognize the direct execution without a decision. from the previous District Court
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
