Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

"Perkembangan dunia usaha yang semakin pesat menuntut kreativitas para pelaku usaha untuk menciptakan suatu terobosan terhadap hal-hal yang tidak diatur dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Sistem terbuka yang dimiliki Hukum Perjanjian sebagaimana tercermin dalam Pasal 1338 ayat 1 Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata telah memberikan kebebasan sedemikian rupa sehingga setiap orang berhak dan bebas untuk membuat atau mengadakan perjanjian yang segala sesuatunya sesuai dengan kehendak para pihak yang membuat. Buyback guarantee yang diberikan developer kepada bank merupakan salah satu bentuk perjanjian penjaminan yang lahir berdasarkan kebebasan berkontrak tersebut. Pemberian buyback guarantee oleh developer sebagai jaminan terhadap pembelian unit apartemen yang masih dalam tahap pembangunan adalah muncul sebagai kebutuhan dalam praktik untuk menjembatani kepentingan tiga pihak, yaitu pertama pihak bank sebagai pemberi kredit kepemilikan apartemen, buyback guarantee berguna untuk membantu kedudukan bank yang sangat berisiko karena tidak/belum dapat mengikat jaminan Hak Tanggungan atas obyek unit apartemen yang dibiayainya. Kedua bagi pihak developer, dana pencairan kredit kepemilikan apartemen akan diterima langsung oleh developer, dimana dana tersebut sangat diperlukan developer baik untuk membiayai pembangunan apartemen maupun untuk mencicil kembali kredit konstruksi yang diberikan oleh bank pemberi kredit konstruksi. Ketiga, dari pihak konsumen apartemen dapat mewujudkan impian memiliki apartemen dengan keleluasaan dana dan jangka waktu pembayaran apartemen karena pembiayaan dari bank. Aspek-aspek hukum buyback guarantee tersebut menarik untuk dibahas mengingat buyback guarantee merupakan hasil kreativitas pelaku usaha di dalam praktik. Melalui penulisan tesis ini dapat diketahui mengenai mengapa diperlukan buyback guarantee, apa dasar pertimbangan developer memberikan buyback guarantee dan sejauh mana buyback guarantee dapat memberi kepastian hukum bagi para pihak yang terlibat di dalamnya.

---

The ever increasingly fast development of the business world demands the creativity of the business perpetrators to create a breakthrough towards matters not regulated in the Indonesian Civil Code.The open system of the contract law as reflected ini Article 1338 paragraph 1 of the Indonesian Civil Code is granting the right and the freedom to any person to draw up or conclude agreement all in accordance with the wishes of the concluding parties. Buyback guarantee granted by the developer to the bank constitute of a guarantee agreement from which is born based on the above freedom of contracts. The granting of a buyback guarantee by the developer as collateral for the purchase of an apartment unit which is still in the development stafe has arisen as practical need. The granting of a buyback guarantee is for bridging the interest of three parties, that is the bank as first party providing the apartment ownership credit, in which case the buyback guarantee serves in assisting the vital risky position of the bank due to its inability/temporary inability to bind Hak Tanggungan on the apartement unit it has financed. Secondly, for the developer, the ownership credit of the apartment unit will be paid to and received direct by the developer, who is in urgent need of the said fund either for financing the construction of the apartment as well as to settle the credit installment it owes for the construction to the credit provider bank. Third, the apartment consumer will be able to realize its dream of owning an apartment based on adequate funds and payment period due to bank financing. The legal aspect of the said buyback guarantee is interesting for further analyzes, considering that the buyback guarantee is result of creativity of the business perpetrators in practical. This thesis has uncovered the reason for the necessity of this institute, what the basic consideration of developer to give buyback guarantee and in how far buyback guarantee can provide legal security to the involved parties."

"Perkembangan dunia usaha yang semakin pesat menuntut kreativitas para pelaku usaha untuk menciptakan suatu terobosan terhadap hal-hal yang tidak diatur dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Perdata. Sistem terbuka yang dimiliki Hukum Perjanjian sebagaimana tercermin dalam Pasal 1338 ayat 1 Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata telah memberikan kebebasan sedemikian rupa sehingga setiap orang berhak dan bebas untuk membuat atau mengadakan perjanjian yang segala sesuatunya sesuai dengan kehendak para pihak yang membuat. Buyback guarantee yang diberikan developer kepada bank merupakan salah satu bentuk perjanjian penjaminan yang lahir berdasarkan kebebasan berkontrak tersebut. Pemberian buyback guarantee oleh developer sebagai jaminan terhadap pembelian unit apartemen yang masih dalam tahap pembangunan adalah muncul sebagai kebutuhan dalam praktik untuk menjembatani kepentingan tiga pihak, yaitu pertama pihak bank sebagai pemberi kredit kepemilikan apartemen, buyback guarantee berguna untuk membantu kedudukan bank yang sangat berisiko karena tidak/belum dapat mengikat jaminan Hak Tanggungan atas obyek unit apartemen yang dibiayainya. Kedua bagi pihak developer, dana pencairan kredit kepemilikan apartemen akan diterima langsung oleh developer, dimana dana tersebut sangat diperlukan developer baik untuk membiayai pembangunan apartemen maupun untuk mencicil kembali kredit konstruksi yang diberikan oleh bank pemberi kredit konstruksi. Ketiga, dari pihak konsumen apartemen dapat mewujudkan impian memiliki apartemen dengan keleluasaan dana dan jangka waktu pembayaran apartemen karena pembiayaan dari bank. Aspek-aspek hukum buyback guarantee tersebut menarik untuk dibahas mengingat buyback guarantee merupakan hasil kreativitas pelaku usaha di dalam praktik. Melalui penulisan tesis ini dapat diketahui mengenai mengapa diperlukan buyback guarantee, apa dasar pertimbangan developer memberikan buyback guarantee dan sejauh mana buyback guarantee dapat memberi kepastian hukum bagi para pihak yang terlibat di dalamnya.

---

The ever increasingly fast development of the business world demands the creativity of the business perpetrators to create a breakthrough towards matters not regulated in the Indonesian Civil Code.The open system of the contract law as reflected ini Article 1338 paragraph 1 of the Indonesian Civil Code is granting the right and the freedom to any person to draw up or conclude agreement all in accordance with the wishes of the concluding parties. Buyback guarantee granted by the developer to the bank constitute of a guarantee agreement from which is born based on the above freedom of contracts. The granting of a buyback guarantee by the developer as collateral for the purchase of an apartment unit which is still in the development stafe has arisen as practical need. The granting of a buyback guarantee is for bridging the interest of three parties, that is the bank as first party providing the apartment ownership credit, in which case the buyback guarantee serves in assisting the vital risky position of the bank due to its inability/temporary inability to bind Hak Tanggungan on the apartement unit it has financed. Secondly, for the developer, the ownership credit of the apartment unit will be paid to and received direct by the developer, who is in urgent need of the said fund either for financing the construction of the apartment as well as to settle the credit installment it owes for the construction to the credit provider bank. Third, the apartment consumer will be able to realize its dream of owning an apartment based on adequate funds and payment period due to bank financing. The legal aspect of the said buyback guarantee is interesting for further analyzes, considering that the buyback guarantee is result of creativity of the business perpetrators in practical. This thesis has uncovered the reason for the necessity of this institute, what the basic consideration of developer to give buyback guarantee and in how far buyback guarantee can provide legal security to the involved parties."

"[Tesis ini membahas mengenai pengaturan tentang pembelian kembalisaham atau yang sering disebut dengan buyback di pasar modal Indonesia yang dilakukan oleh Bank Tbk. yang secara khusus diatur dalam Peraturan Bapepam Nomor XI.B.2, namun dalam kondisi krisis global yang terjadi akhir-akhir ini, Bapepam mengeluarkan peraturan baru yang mengatur mengenai buyback pada kondisi pasar yang berfluktuasi secara signifikan, yaitu Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 2/POJK.04/2013. Peraturan baru tersebut memberi sejumlahkelonggaran dalam pelaksanaan buyback, terutama batas pembelian kembali saham yang dinaikkan menjadi 20% serta tidak perlu meminta persetujuan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (“RUPS”) terlebih dahulu. Digunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan yang bertujuan untuk menemukan masalah (problem finding) untuk kemudian menuju pada suatu penelitian untuk mengatasi masalah (problem solution). Permasalahan kemudian tibul dikarenakan adanya kelonggaran tentangkewajiban dilaksanakannya RUPS dalam pelaksanaan buyback saham yang mengakibatkan tersinggungnya / berkurangnya perlindungan terhadap pemegang saham perusahaan karena beralihnya kewenangan RUPS menjadi kewenangan Direksi perusahaan. Selanjutnya, bagaimana apabila setelah melakukan buyback, perseroan tetap mengalami kerugian, sehingga dalam hal ini direksi dapat saja dimintakan pertanggungjawabannya, namun untuk itu harus terlebih dahuludibuktikan bahwa direksi telah melanggar fiduciary duty-nya. Penelitian ini membahas mengenai tata cara dan persyaratan dalam pelaksanaan buyback oleh Bank sebagai emiten atau perusahaan publik berdasarkan Peraturan Bapepam Nomor XI.B.2 dan Peraturan Otoritas Jasa Keuangan Nomor 2/POJK.04/2013, perlindungan pemegang saham dan tanggung jawab Direksi terhadap buyback yang dilakukan oleh perusahaan.;This thesis discusses on regulations related to share buyback by a PublicBank in Indonesian capital market that is specifically regulated in Bapepam Regulation Number XI.B.2, however in the current global crisis conditions, Bapepam has issued new regulations regulating on share buyback in the market conditions which fluctuating significantly, namely Financial Service Authority Regulations (“POJK”) Number 2/POJK.04/2013. Such new regulation gives some flexibilities in the buy back execution, particularly the limit of shares buy backincreased to be 20% and it is not necessary to get prior approval from the General Meeting of Shareholders. In this thesis is used literature research methodology with the aims to find out the problem (problem finding) and then to go to a research to overcome the problem (problem solution). The problem arises when the regulation causes a loose on the company’s obligation in conducting a Shareholders’ Meeting (related to share buyback), thus giving the Borad of Director of the company, on their sole discretion, to conduct share buyback. Thisaction gives an impact to the shareholders’ rights, in the meaning that the shareholders in this case do not have the right to participate nor give votes in the company’s corporate actions (in this case, share buyback). Furthermore, if the share buyback costs losses to the company, the Board of Directors of the company should be asked for its accountability, but to do so, it must be previously provedthat the Board of Directors has violated its fiduciary duty, in which it also corresponds to a doctrine namely the doctrine of business judgment rule. This study discusses the procedures and requirements in the implementation of the share buyback by the Issuer or public company based on Bapepam Regulations Number XI.B.2 and POJK Number 2/POJK.04/2013, the protection towards the company’s shareholders and the responsibility of the Board of Directors towardthe share buyback in relation to the doctrine of business judgment rule;This thesis discusses on regulations related to share buyback by a PublicBank in Indonesian capital market that is specifically regulated in BapepamRegulation Number XI.B.2, however in the current global crisis conditions,Bapepam has issued new regulations regulating on share buyback in the marketconditions which fluctuating significantly, namely Financial Service AuthorityRegulations (“POJK”) Number 2/POJK.04/2013. Such new regulation gives someflexibilities in the buy back execution, particularly the limit of shares buy backincreased to be 20% and it is not necessary to get prior approval from the GeneralMeeting of Shareholders. In this thesis is used literature research methodologywith the aims to find out the problem (problem finding) and then to go to aresearch to overcome the problem (problem solution). The problem arises whenthe regulation causes a loose on the company’s obligation in conducting aShareholders’ Meeting (related to share buyback), thus giving the Borad ofDirector of the company, on their sole discretion, to conduct share buyback. Thisaction gives an impact to the shareholders’ rights, in the meaning that theshareholders in this case do not have the right to participate nor give votes in thecompany’s corporate actions (in this case, share buyback). Furthermore, if theshare buyback costs losses to the company, the Board of Directors of the companyshould be asked for its accountability, but to do so, it must be previously provedthat the Board of Directors has violated its fiduciary duty, in which it alsocorresponds to a doctrine namely the doctrine of business judgment rule. Thisstudy discusses the procedures and requirements in the implementation of theshare buyback by the Issuer or public company based on Bapepam RegulationsNumber XI.B.2 and POJK Number 2/POJK.04/2013, the protection towards thecompany’s shareholders and the responsibility of the Board of Directors towardthe share buyback in relation to the doctrine of business judgment rule, This thesis discusses on regulations related to share buyback by a PublicBank in Indonesian capital market that is specifically regulated in BapepamRegulation Number XI.B.2, however in the current global crisis conditions,Bapepam has issued new regulations regulating on share buyback in the marketconditions which fluctuating significantly, namely Financial Service AuthorityRegulations (“POJK”) Number 2/POJK.04/2013. Such new regulation gives someflexibilities in the buy back execution, particularly the limit of shares buy backincreased to be 20% and it is not necessary to get prior approval from the GeneralMeeting of Shareholders. In this thesis is used literature research methodologywith the aims to find out the problem (problem finding) and then to go to aresearch to overcome the problem (problem solution). The problem arises whenthe regulation causes a loose on the company’s obligation in conducting aShareholders’ Meeting (related to share buyback), thus giving the Borad ofDirector of the company, on their sole discretion, to conduct share buyback. Thisaction gives an impact to the shareholders’ rights, in the meaning that theshareholders in this case do not have the right to participate nor give votes in thecompany’s corporate actions (in this case, share buyback). Furthermore, if theshare buyback costs losses to the company, the Board of Directors of the companyshould be asked for its accountability, but to do so, it must be previously provedthat the Board of Directors has violated its fiduciary duty, in which it alsocorresponds to a doctrine namely the doctrine of business judgment rule. Thisstudy discusses the procedures and requirements in the implementation of theshare buyback by the Issuer or public company based on Bapepam RegulationsNumber XI.B.2 and POJK Number 2/POJK.04/2013, the protection towards thecompany’s shareholders and the responsibility of the Board of Directors towardthe share buyback in relation to the doctrine of business judgment rule]"

"Jaminan Perorangan yang diberikan oleh pihak ketiga yang bertindak sebagai penanggung/penjamin debitur dalam pelunasan utang debitur merupakan salah satu alternatif penyelesaian kredit macet pada Bank Badan Usaha Milik Negara, manakala debitur ingkar janji (wanprestasi). Perjanjian perorangan/penanggungan tersebut bersifat asesor, dalam arti senantiasa dikaitkan dengan perjanjian pokok, sehingga dapat diartikan bahwa tak akan ada penanggungan tanpa adanya perutangan pokok yang sah. Pada Bank Badan Usaha Milik Negara sebelum dikeluarkannya PP Nomor 14 tahun 2005 tentang Cara Pengapusan Piutang Negara / Daerah, yang kemudian diubah dengan PP Nomor 33 tahun 2006 tentang Perubahan atas PP Nomor 14 tahun 2005, yang berwenang untuk menyelesaikan kredit macet adalah Panitia Urusan Piutang Negara berdasarkan Undang-undang Nomor 49 Prp tahun 1960 tentang Panitia Urusan Piutang Negara (Undang-undang PUPN). Tindakan eksekusi terhadap jaminan perorangan oleh PUPN merupakan upaya terakhir untuk dilakukan, setelah dilakukan terlebih dahulu upaya penyitaan terhadap barang jaminan dan harta kekayaan debitur yang kemudian dilanjutkan dengan tindakan pelelangan. Apabila dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi jaminan perorangan, ternyata penanggung utang tidak beritikad baik untuk menyelesaikan kewajibannya secara sukarela atau menyerahkan harta kekayaannya, maka PUPN akan melakukan hal-hal sebagai berikut : a. Pencarian dan pemeriksaan (investigasi) terhadap kekayaan penanggung utang yang dapat digunakan untuk membayar utang, baik berupa barang tetap seperti tanah dan bangunan dan atau barang bergerak seperti kendaraan bermotor, tagihan/tabungan dan lain-lai; b. Pencarian data/dokumen (bukti kepemilikan) atas harta kekayaan penanggung utang melalui instansi/lembaga yang terkait, untuk digunakan sebagai pendukung dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi.

---

An individual guarantee provided by a third party acting as a debt guarantor/avalist in settling debtor?s debt constitute an alternative settlement for bad debts with State Owned Corporations, in case of defalt by debtor. Said individual guarantee is of the assessor type, meaning it is continually linked to a principal agreement, with the consequence that it can be defined as having no guarantee without an existing legal principal debt. The previously issued Government Regulation Number 14 years 2005 at the State Owned Corporation regarding the Writing Off Process of State/Regional Claims, which was further amended by Government Regulation Number 33 year 2006 regarding the Amendment of Government Regulation Number 14 year 2005, appointing the State Claims Affairs Committee (PUPN) as the authorized party to settle bad credits based on Law Number 49 Prp year 1960 regarding State Claims Affairs Committee (PUPN Law). Execution measure against individual guarantee by the PUPN will be effected as the last resort by the PUPN, after prior confiscation of the debtor?s collateral and assets which is further followed by its auctioning off. If during the execution of the individual guarantee, there is an indication that guarantor has no intention of a voluntary settlement of the liability or to surrender his/her assets, the PUPN shall resort to the following actions : a. investigation and examination of the guarantor?s assets that can be employed as debt payment, either consisting of fixed goods such as land and buildings or movable goods such as motorized vehicles, collections/savings and others; b. Finding data/documents (proof of ownership of guarantor/s assets through related instances/institutions to support the execution."

"ABSTRAKDalam melaksanakan kegiatannya, bank harus memperhatikan norma dan prinsip hukum yang berlaku agar tidak merugikan pihak yang berurusan dengannya. Di beberapa kasus yang terjadi di masyarakat, bank dalam menyelenggarakan kegiatannya tak jarang membuat kesalahan yang menimbulkan kerugian terhadap nasabahnya. Pada tanggal 1 Juni 2010, applicant mengirimkan Surat No. 2810/VI/2010 kepada Bank untuk mengakhiri kontra garansi atas dasar terselesaikannya semua pekerjaan. Namun ada kelalaian dari pegawai bank yang tidak segera menindaklanjuti pengakhirankontra garansi tersebut, yang mengakibatkan dicairkannya performance bond applicant. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengkaji, memahami, dan meninjau mengenai proses pemberian kontra garansi dalam praktik penerbitan bank garansi dikaitkan dengan Peraturan Bank Garansi. Pokok permasalahan yang akan dibahas adalah mengenai bagaimana proses pemberian kontra garansi yang sesuai dengan peraturan yang berlaku dan tanggung jawab bank sebagai penjamin dalam pemberian kontra garansi ini. Metode penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah penelitian yuridis normatif, yang sumbernya dapat diperoleh dari bahan pustaka dan studi dokumen, serta penulis mengadakan wawancara kepada narasumber untuk menambah informasi untuk penelitian ini. Bank dalam kasus ini telah melakukan suatu perbuatan melanggar hukum dalam pemberian kontra garansi

---

ABSTRACTConducting its activities, the bank must pay attention to the norms and principles of law in order not to harm those who deal with it. However, in some cases, the bank, in conducting its activity, often makes mistakes that cause losses to customers. On June 1, 2010 , the applicant sent a letter (No. 2810/ VI / 2010) to the bank to terminate the counter guarantee on the basis of completion of all the work. But there is negligence of bank employees who do not immediately follow the termination of the counter guarantee, which resulted in the disbursement of applicant's performance bond. The purposeof this study is to assess, understand, and reviewing the process of closing a counter guarantee in bank guarantee's practice by Bank Guarantee?s rule. The subject matter that will be discussed is about how to closuring a counter guarantee in accordance with applicable regulations and responsibilities as aguarantor bank in the provision of this counter guarantee. The method used in this research is normative juridical research, which can be obtained from the material library source and documents study, as well as the interview to supplement informations for this study. In this case, bank hascommitted an un-lawful act in the provision of counter guarantee."

"Skripsi ini akan membahas mengenai pelaksanaan bank garansi dalam kegiatan perjanjian jual beli batubara di Indonesia, tinjauan umum mengenai perjanjian jual beli dan Letter of Credit, tinjauan umum hukum jaminan serta tinjauan secara mendalam terhadap bank garansi dikaitkan dengan perjanjian jual beli batubara. Penelitian yang digunakan adalah normatif yuridis dan menggunakan metode penelitian kepustakaan dengan melihat permasalahan yang ada terkait implementasi dari pemberian bank garansi sebagai jaminan atas terbitnya janji bayar (L/C). Permasalahan tersebut khususnya mengenai peranan bank garansi dalam Perjanjian Jual Beli Batubara terkait pelaksanaan dan klaim pembayaran apabila terjadi wanprestasi, serta karakteristik daripada perjanjian jual beli batubara itu sendiri.

---

This thesis describes about implementation of Guarantee Bank in Coal Sale and Purchase Contract in Indonesia, general review of purchase agreement and Letter of Credit, also general review about legal guarantees and specific review about guarantee bank as coal sale and purchase contract activity. The thesis applies the juridical normative form of study, with the literature research to find the problem in the implementation of guarantee bank as guarantees to issues letter of credit. Specifically the problem consist about the role of guarantee bank in coal purchase agreement, concern about performance and claims payment if default occurs, with the characteristic of coal sale and purchase contract itself."

"Skripsi ini membahas mengenai efektivitas perlindungan investor dalam aksi pembelian kembali saham melalui pasar modal, baik dalam kondisi pasar yang normal maupun kondisi pasar yang berpotensi krisis. Hal ini terkait dengan kebijakan pemerintah yang menghimbau untuk dilaksanakannya pembelian kembali saham dan melonggarkan ketentuan-ketentuan untuk melaksanakan pembelian kembali saham melalui penerbitan Peraturan Bapepam Nomor XI.B.3 tentang Pembelian Kembali Saham Yang Dikeluarkan Oleh Emiten Atau Perusahaan Publik Dalam Kondisi Pasar Yang Berpotens Krisis. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan pendekatan peraturan perundang-undangan, pendekatan perbandingan, dan pendekatan kasus. Penelitian ini menyimpulkan bahwa perlindungan investor yang diberikan dalam aksi pembelian kembali saham pada situasi pasar yang normal maupun situasi pasar yang berpotensi krisis sudah cukup efektif. Walaupun Peraturan Bapepam Nomor XI.B.3 memberikan banyak kelonggaran-kelonggaran, namun penurunan perlindungan investor yang terjadi tidak sampai ke level tidak efektif dan merugikan investor.

---

This thesis discusses the effectiveness of the protection of investors in a share buyback action through the capital market, either in a normal market conditions or in a market conditions which has the crisis potential. This is related to government policies that encourage the implementation of shares repurchase and re-stretch the conditions to conduct shares repurchase through the issuance of Bapepam Rule Number XI.B.3 about Repurchase of Shares Issued By The Public Company In a Market Conditions Which Has The Crisis Potential.

This thesis is a normative legal study and employs statutes, a comparative approach, and a case study in its analysis. This study concluded that the protection given to investors in a share buyback action through the capital market, either in a normal market conditions or in a market conditions which has the crisis potential, has been quite effective. Although Bapepam Rule Number XI.B.3 gives much leeway-loose, but the decrease in investor protection is not yet reached the level of ineffective and still does not harm the investors."

"Tesis ini membahas mengenai perjanjian Jaminan Pribadi sebagai jaminan kredit bank yang dalam praktek perbankan lebih dikenal sebagai Personal Guarantee, adalah perjanjian penanggungan (borgtocth) antara kreditur dengan pihak ketiga. Jaminan pribadi merupakan janji atau kesanggupan pihak ketiga untuk memenuhi kewajiban debitur, apabila debitur cidera janji (wanprestasf) dikemudian hari (Pasal 1820 KUHPerdata). Jaminan pribadi yang diberikan oleh pihak ketiga yang bertindak sebagai penanggung/penjamin debitur dalam pelunasan hutang debitur merupakan salah satu alternatif sebagai iaminan kredit dan penyelesaian kredit macet pada bank manakala debitur cidera janji. Dalam tulisan ini dicoba untuk membahas, meneliti permasalahan - permasalahan upaya bank dalam menyelesaikan kredit macet yang menggunakan jaminan pribadi serta. Juga analisis atas putusan Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Selatan No.580/Pdt.G/2002 dan putusan Pengadilan Tinggi DKI Jakarta No.322/PDT/2003 untuk melakukan eksekusi jaminan pribadi apakah sudah tepat secara hukum. Metode penelitiannya adalah penelitian normatif melalui studi kepustakaan dengan menggunakan data sekunder, baik melalui studi dokumen maupun wawancara yang dianalisis secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menyimpulkan dalam prakteknya eksekusi jaminan pribadi banyak kendala-kendala yang menyulitkan kreditur bank untuk melaksanakan eksekusi terhadap harta/ aset milik penjamin sehingga sering kali timbul masalah lain dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi terhadap penjamin pribadi, sehingga dalam perjanjian jaminan pribadi perlu dilakukan atau dibarengi dengan jaminan kebendaan atas harta/aset milik penanggung/penjamin sehingga kreditur bank dapat memperoleh kepastian hukum dalam meminta pertanggung jawaban penanggung / penjamin atas hutanghutang debitur. Namun demikian dalam pelaksanaan eksekusi Jaminan Pribadi tersebut tetap bergantung pada itikad baik penjamin.

---

This thesis specifically, discuss personal guarantee agreement as credit bank guarantee, with bank's effort in settling bad debt using personal agreement and execution Acton personal property/assets on bearer/guarantor. Personal guarantee in banking practice is an agreement of the bearer (borgtocth) between creditor with third party. Personal Guarantee is an agreement of capability of third party to fulfill debtor’s duty, if then debtor miss fulfill (wanprestasi). (np 1820 KUH Perdata). Personal Guarantee which is given by third party acts as guarantor to debtor in debt settlement considered as alternative credit guarantee and bad debt settlement to bank if debtor miss promised. The bearer agreement is accessories, in meaning always hooked with main agreement, so can be meaning no bearer without legal main debt. In personal guarantee agreement no personal property of debtor attached, what is attached is the capability of third party to settle debtor’s debt, so in personal guarantee agreement will apply terms as in common guarantee which is born by Law and given equal degree among creditors, as only concurrent. The survey method is normative by appendix studies using secondary data, by documents study and qualified analytic interviews. The result comply in practice execution on personal guarantee occurs obstacles that hustle bank creditors to execute assets/treasures of guarantor, so other problem occurs , therefore in personal guarantee agreement needs to be added property guarantee on assets/treasures of guarantor, then bank creditor have legal demanding guarantor responsibility debts."

"ABSTRAKDalam perjanjian kerja sama pemberian fasilitas kreditpemilikan rumah antara pengembang dengan bank biasanyaselalu diatur mengenai klausul Buy Back Guarantee, yangmerupakan jaminan dari pengembang kepada bank untuk membelikembali rumah yang dibeli konsumen dari pengembang yangmerupakan agunan kredit pemilikan rumah di bank, selamasertipikat atas rumah dimaksud belum selesai dibalik namake atas nama konsumen dan belum dipasang hak tanggungan.Pengaturan dan pelaksanaan Buy Back Guarantee antarapengembang dengan bank dilakukan dengan penandatangananakta subrogasi tanpa melibatkan dan diinformasikan kepadakonsumen. Konsumen menolak Buy Back Guarantee karena merasadirugikan, di mana harga yang dikeluarkan oleh pengembangkepada bank tidak sepadan dengan harga rumah yang sudahdibeli dari pengembang. Pada akhirnya penolakan darikonsumen tersebut menimbulkan permasalahan dalampelaksanaan eksekusi pengosongan dan penjualan atas rumahyang diajukan pengembang. Permasalahan yang timbul tersebutadalah merupakan dampak atau akibat dari pelaksanaan BuyBack Guarantee dalam perjanjian kredit pemilikan rumah."