Problematika Tindakan Subrogasi Secara Sepihak: Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Debitor

Abstract

This research examines subrogation actions that do not provide advance notification to the debtor, resulting in the transfer of collateral used to secure credit to a third party. The Panel of Judges who reviewed the cases granted the plaintiff/debtor's claim in some instances, while rejecting it in others. Referring to the aforementioned issues raises the question of how the validity of the subrogation mechanism is affected by the applicable statutory provisions and the legal protection of the debtor as the owner of the guarantee, if the bank's subrogation action is deemed invalid. The research method used in this paper is normative. According to the Civil Code, the transfer of receivables by PT Maybank as the Creditor was not a unilateral action. Rather, there were agreements and conditions previously agreed upon by both parties when the Plaintiff/Debtor obtained a credit facility from PT Maybank/Creditor. It is important to note that subjective evaluations have been excluded from this analysis. The plaintiff obtains legal protection for the unilateral subrogation action, which allows them to regain their rights to the land and building used as collateral, provided that they are in good condition and free of any occupants or belongings as well as to obtain compensation for material damages.