Uncategorized

DPR Asks OJK to Remove Rules Allowing Third Party Debt Collectors

December 16, 2025
2:21 AM

Jakarta, hitclubapk3 Indonesia
—
Commission III DPR
request the Financial Services Authority (
FSA
) abolish regulations regarding debt collection by third parties or
debt collector
aka eagle eye.
This was conveyed by Member of Commission III DPR Abdullah in response to the debt collection incident which resulted in criminal acts and casualties in front of the Kalibata Heroes’ Cemetery, South Jakarta, Thursday (11/12).
He also mentioned incidents of debt collection by third parties which occurred again with threats, violence and humiliation of consumers on Jalan Juanda, Depok, Saturday (13/12).
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“This is the second time I have asked the OJK to remove the regulations on debt collection by third parties,” said Abdullah, Monday (15/12) as quoted from
Between
.
According to him, OJK Regulations (POJK) Number 35 of 2018 and Number 22 of 2023 which regulate debt collection by third parties can be said to be ineffective.Abduh also questioned the OJK’s basis for making regulations on billing by third parties.
He also referred to Law 42/1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees which does not mandate debt collection through third parties.
“Referring to Law Number 42 of 1999 concerning Fiduciary Guarantees, it does not regulate explicitly and gives a direct mandate to collect debts from third parties, but rather from creditors,” he said.
This means, said Abdullah, in the midst of a crisis in the governance of debt collection by third parties, OJK is the party most responsible.He emphasized that the OJK cannot just make regulations without monitoring them closely and mitigating the risks.
Therefore, the man who is also a member of the DPR Legislative Body urged the OJK to return debt collection to creditors or financial services businesses without third parties.
“Restore debt collection to financial services businesses without involving third parties. Improve debt collection governance with regulations that prioritize consumer protection and the rights of financial services businesses with no or minimal loopholes for criminal acts,” said Abdullah.
Abdullah then asked the OJK and the police to take firm action against financial services businesses who collect debts through third parties or
debt collector
aka eagle eye with criminal acts.
“Examine and investigate related financial services business actors, if there are violations, take strict sanctions, both ethical and criminal,” said the PKB politician.
Previously, the police said there needed to be an evaluation regarding the actions of eagle eyes (matel) or debt collectors in forcibly towing vehicles that were in arrears on installments.
This was conveyed by the Head of Public Relations of Polda Metro Jaya, Kombes Budi Hermanto, following the attack that killed two people by six members of Yanma Police Headquarters in Kalibata, South Jakarta.
Regarding this incident, Budi said that there needs to be an evaluation from the leasing party to re-arrange appropriate regulations so that the incident does not happen again.
“Indeed, from the results of conditions in the field over the past few decades, there are wrong ways to do it, either by re-examination or…
debt collector
,” said Budi to journalists, quoted on Sunday (14/12).
According to Budi, Matel as a third party should have been able to first urge debtors to pay off or use other administrative methods.
“So it’s not taking, it’s forcibly dismissing customers on the streets. This is our common concern,” he said.
Previously, in 2020, the Constitutional Court (MK) decided that leasing companies or credit providers and debt collectors who were authorized third parties could not execute fiduciary or collateral objects such as vehicles or houses unilaterally.
This is stated in the Constitutional Court decision Number 18/PUU-XVII/2019 dated January 6 2020. The Constitutional Court’s decision is final and binding, so that every leasing company or its proxies may not take action to take forced action for debtors who experience delays in installment payments.
In decision number 18/PUU-XVII/2019, the Constitutional Court stated that so far there is no procedure for executing or withdrawing leased goods if the creditor misses the payment deadline.As a result, coercion or violence arises from people who claim to be the party who has the authority to collect the payment or is often referred to as
debt collector
aka eagle eye.
In its decision, the Constitutional Court referred to the execution provisions stipulated in the relevant regulations that the creditor – or in legal terms referred to as a fiduciary or recipient of rights – must not carry out the execution himself, but must submit an application to the District Court.
In addition, in its decision, the Constitutional Court stated that debtors’ obligations to settle their debts or installments should not be a reason to carry out terror accompanied by the use of violence, threats or insults to the dignity of citizens.
(between/kid)
[Gambas:hitclubapk3 Video]