Legal Protection for Creditors in Money Loans Agreement Lending with Constitutional Court's Decision No. 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Indonesia, the Marriage Agreement has long been valid and regulated in the legislation in Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage. Marriage Agreement regulates marriage property. In Article 29 paragraph (1) Law Number 1 Year 1974 concerning Marriage stipulates that marriage agreements must be made before the marriage takes place, but in 2015 the Constitutional Court issued Decision Number 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 concerning changes to Article 29 paragraph (1), paragraph (3), and paragraph (4) of Law Number 1 of 1974 concerning Marriage which states that the Marriage Agreement can be made before, at the time of, and after the marriage takes place. The Constitutional Court ruling raises questions from various parties about how the legal consequences of the Marriage Agreement made after the marriage took place and what legal protection can be given to third parties on the Marriage Agreement which was made after the marriage took place. This study uses a normative juridical research method that is descriptive analytical based on the merging of primary, secondary and tertiary data acquisition. The results of this study indicate that the legal consequences of the Marriage Agreement made after the marriage took place will have legal consequences for the parties themselves, assets, and also for third parties. Legal protection that can be given to creditors is to pay attention to the element of good faith in each loan agreement making so that creditors will be protected by themselves, if one of the parties making the loan agreement has bad faith, the loan agreement will automatically be canceled law because it does not meet the objective requirements. The author's hope for this research is that the government can provide further regulation regarding the Constitutional Court Decision Number 69 / PUU-XIII / 2015 so that the public gets legal certainty in the implementation of the Decision and for the community the writer recommends restraint in carrying out the Decision until the regulation further from the government. Finally, the authors hope that this research can benefit the world of legal development in Indonesia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it