Comparison of Non-Execution Auctions on Fiduciary Guarantees in Indo-nesia and Malaysia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35335/legal.v14i5.1478Keywords:
Comparative Law, Fiduciary Security, Non-Execution AuctionAbstract
This study discusses the implementation of non-execution fiduciary auctions in Indonesia and Malaysia in the context of effectiveness, legal certainty, and protection of the parties. The approach used is normative-comparative jurisprudence, by analysing primary legal materials in the form of laws, court decisions, and legal documents in both countries, as well as secondary legal materials in the form of related scientific literature. The results of the study show that Indonesia, with its civil law system, considers fiduciary auctions to be public legal actions supervised by the state through administrative mechanisms and Constitutional Court Decision No. 18/PUU-XVII/2019. while Malaysia, with its common law system, implements contractual repossession and public auctions based on the Lease Purchase Act 1967 and the Draft Act on Security Rights over Movable Property. These differences reflect Indonesia's focus on substantive justice and debtor protection, while Malaysia excels in procedural efficiency and legal certainty for creditors. This study concludes that the ideal model for non-execution fiduciary auctions in Indonesia needs to integrate the efficiency of the Malaysian system with Indonesian legal protection through regulatory reform, digitisation of fiduciary registration, and strengthened supervision. This hybrid model is expected to create a balance between legal certainty, justice, and economic efficiency in national security law practice
Downloads
References
Armour, J., & Frisby, S. (2001). Rethinking receivables financing: Legal obstacles to factoring and securitisation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 21(4), 725–753. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/21.4.725
Bahar, T. M. A., Kamello, T., Suhadi, S., Saidin, S., & Trihasworo, R. H. B. (2023). Contractual obligations in fiduciary financing in Indonesia in the context of justice. Lex Scientia Law Review, 7(1), 215–248. https://doi.org/10.15294/lesrev.v7i1.69318
Bazinas, S. V. (2019). UNCITRAL’s work on secured transactions: The road ahead. Uniform Law Review, 24(2), 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unz016
Berger, K. P. (2010). The creeping codification of the lex mercatoria. Kluwer Law International.
Chartered Secretaries Malaysia (MAICSA). (2023, 24 October). New legal framework for secured transactions on movable property. Kuala Lumpur: MAICSA. Retrieved from https://www.maicsa.org.my
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2019). Decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 concerning the Judicial Review of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees against the 1945
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. (2021). Decision Number 02/PUU-XIX/2021 concerning the Judicial Review of Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees against the 1945 Constitution. Jakarta: Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia.
Cuming, R. C. (2007). Reforming personal property security law: A comparative overview. Canadian Business Law Journal, 45(2), 243–280.
Duggan, A. (2018). Personal property security and insolvency law reform in the Asia-Pacific. Australian Law Journal, 92(4), 291–304.
Ferran, E. (2008). Credit, collateral and bankruptcy. Journal of Business Law, 3, 307–331.
Fitri, T. J., Djumikasih, D., & Herlindah, H. (2025). Reconceptualising the implementation of fiduciary guarantees following the Indonesian Constitutional Court's ruling. International Journal of Law, Research and Education Studies (IJLRES), 9(2), 121–134.
Fitri, T. J., Djumikasih, D., & Herlindah, H. (2025). Re-conceptualising the implementation of fiduciary guarantees following the Indonesian Constitutional Court ruling. International Journal of Law, Research and Education Studies (IJLRES), 9(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.47006/ijlres.v9i2.25054
Government of Malaysia. (2022). Draft Movable Property Security Bill (MPSI Bill). Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs.
Government of the Republic of Indonesia. (1999). Law No. 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees. State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 1999 No. 168.
Harding, A. (2012). The constitution of Malaysia: A contextual analysis. Hart Publishing.
Ho, L. W. (2019). Secured transactions law in Asia: Harmonisation or divergence? International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 68(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589318000447
Jamil, M. (2021). Fiduciary guarantee regulations and issues in Indonesia. Journal of Human Rights, Culture, and Legal Systems, 1(2), 111–119. https://doi.org/10.53955/jhcls.v1i2.1
Karna, E. P., Kamelo, T., Sutiarnoto, S., & Yerfizawati. (2023). Implementation of fiduciary collateral after the Decision of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 juncto 02/PUU-XIX/2021 (Case study of the Medan District Court). Journal of Law & Policy, 1(2), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.5555/jlpr.2023.442
Lookofsky, J. (2012). Principles of secured transactions: Scandinavian perspectives. Scandinavian Studies in Law, 58, 21–37.
Malaysian Companies Commission (SSM). (2023). Guidelines for Secured Transactions in Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur: SSM.
Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia. (2020). Minister of Finance Regulation No. 213/PMK.06/2020 concerning Guidelines for the Implementation of Auctions. Jakarta: Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Indonesia.
McCormack, G. (2017). Registration of security interests: Functionalism and the UNCITRAL Model Law. International Insolvency Review, 26(2), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/iir.1275
Malaysian Parliament. (1965). National Land Act 1965 (Act No. 56 of 1965). Kuala Lumpur: Government of Malaysia.
Malaysian Parliament. (1967). Lease Purchase Act 1967 (Act No. 212). Kuala Lumpur: Government of Malaysia.
Neo, D. (2025). Modern principles and secured transactions law in Asia. Uniform Law Review, 29(4), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/unaf007
Omar, P. (2014). Secured transactions law reform in the ASEAN region. Asian Journal of Comparative Law, 9(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2014.5
Secured Transactions Law Reform Project. (2020). Progress report on secured transactions law reform in Malaysia.
Salvia, M. P., & Karista Putri, L. P. Y. (2024). The constitutionality of the implementation of fiduciary guarantees within the framework of consumer rights protection. Journal of Constitution, 21(2), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.31078/jk2127
Singh, A. (2020). Repossession and consumer credit regulation: Balancing efficiency and fairness. Journal of Consumer Policy, 43(3), 623–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-019-09420-8
Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2019). Normative legal research: A brief review (Revised edition). Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Susilo, A. B., & Abd Aziz, A. S. (2023). The quo vadis of fiduciary collateral based on regulations in Indonesia and Malaysia. Journal of Law and Democracy, 6(2), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.30659/jdh.v6i2.31592
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). (2016). Model Law on Secured Transactions. Vienna: United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210054417
UNCITRAL Regional Centre for Asia and the Pacific. (2022). Introduction to the legal framework for secured transactions in Malaysia.
UNCITRAL. (2016). Model Law on Secured Transactions. United Nations. https://doi.org/10.18356/9789210054417
World Bank. (2020). Doing Business 2020: Secured transactions, credit, and collateral law reforms. World Bank Group.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 LEGAL BRIEF
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
