Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
Putusan Mahkamah Konstusi Nomor 2/PUU-XIX/2021 memberikan kewenangan bagi pengadilan negeri untuk dapat mengeksekusi objek jaminan fidusia dalam hal tidak adanya kesepakatan mengenai cidera janji (wanprestasi) dan debitur tidak sukarela menyerahkan benda jaminannya. Mahkamah Konstitusi memberikan norma hukum yang baru ini dalam rangka memberikan perlindungan hukum bagi debitur yang sering kali mendapatkan perbuatan semena-mena dari kreditur atau debt collector dalam menarik benda jaminan fidusia. Namun pada praktiknya pelaksanaan eksekusi melalui pengadilan mengalami berbagai hambatan dan kendala. Dibandingkan dengan Negara Inggris dan Kanada, negara-negara tersebut mengenal lembaga jurusita swasta yang bukan pegawai pengadilan yang memiliki kewenangan layaknya jurusita pengadilan. Tulisan ini akan menganalisis bagaimana aturan hukum eksekusi jaminan fidusia di Indonesia, pengaturan eksekusi di negara Inggris dan Kanada serta bagaimana sebaiknya aturan mengenai eksekusi jaminan fidusia di Indonesia di masa yang akan datang. ......Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 2/PUU-XIX/2021 authorizes the district court to be able to execute the object of the fiduciary guarantee in the event that there is no agreement regarding default and the debtor does not voluntarily hand over the object of guarantee. The Constitutional Court gave this new legal norm in order to provide legal protection for debtors who often get arbitrary actions from creditors or debt collectors in withdrawing fiduciary collateral objects. However, in practice the implementation of execution through the courts experienced various obstacles. Compared to the United Kingdom and Canada, these countries recognize private bailiff institutions that are not court employees who have authority like court bailiffs. This paper will analize how the legal rules for executing fiduciary guarantees in Indonesia, the execution arrangements in England and Canada and how best the rules regarding the execution of fiduciary guarantees in Indonesia will be in the future.

Abstrak :
Outspoken, no-nonsense and eminently fascinating, Joseph M. Arpaio has captured the public's imagination from his first day as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, in 1992. He has become an icon, not only in his own state, but all over the world. For almost 15 years, he has maintained an unprecedented 80 per cent approval rating. Famous for his 'get smart and get tough' approach to jails, Arpaio conceived The Tent City Jail where he houses his inmates in surplus army tents left over from the Korean War. Known as the 'Alcatraz of Arizona,' the jail features chain gangs, discipline, and a complete absence of luxuries of any kind. By eliminating all comforts for his inmates, he has managed to shave $500,000 annually from the cost of keeping prisoners.To his ardent followers, he is a hero, for both his toughness on crime and his humane touch. While his opponents decry him for his iron-fisted approach, especially regarding prisoners, no one can deny that Sheriff Joe is one of the country's most respected and innovative elected officials. "Joe's Law" is an uncensored account of the man himself. With candor and insight, he reveals his views not only on criminal justice, but on some of the most seminal issues that affect our country today. As the first law enforcement official in the country to place arrested illegal immigrants in jail pending trial, Arpaio tackles the issue of illegal immigration head on, which he argues, affects every other aspect of law enforcement as well as broader problems, from health care to education and taxes.Despite his tough-as-nails reputation, Arpaio offers innovative and fair ways to solve crime and save taxpayer's money in his own state and shows how they can be applied to solve our own nation's problems. Compelling and courageous, this is an unflinching look at some of America's most pressing social problems, and one man's revolutionary vision for eliminating them.