The Nature of the Difference in the Validity Period of the Power of Attorney to Impose Mortgage Rights

Abstract

The regulation regarding the difference in the time limit for the validity of the Power of Attorney to impose Mortgage Rights (SKMHT) which is regulated in Article 15 of Law Number 4 of 1996 concerning Mortgage on Land and Objects Related to Land gives birth to a vague norm (vague norm), in particular in the provisions governing the SKMHT deadline that is valid until the end of the main agreement, because with the given period of time it seems there is no obligation to follow up the SKHMT process to the Deed of Granting Mortgage Rights (APHT). This study will analyze the nature of the difference in the period of SKMHT for certain loans. This research is a normative legal research using a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, a historical approach and a philosophical approach. The results of the research conclude that the provisions for differentiating the period of SKMHT for certain loans are intended to facilitate the implementation of small-scale loans but on the other hand ignore legal certainty. The existence of these provisions places creditors in a position that is prone to being harmed in the event of a blockage on the object that is used as collateral. Such a condition has a legal consequence that the creditor cannot become a preferred creditor anymore due to the inability to install Mortgage Rights.