The enforcement of fiduciary guarantees in Indonesia has increasingly generated legal tension at the intersection of civil law, criminal procedure, and police authority, particularly following the Constitutional Court’s reinterpretation of parate executie in fiduciary arrangements. In practice, police involvement in fiduciary guarantee execution has often been contested, as it risks blurring the doctrinal boundaries between private law enforcement and public coercive power. This article examines the relevance and legitimacy of police-led restorative justice as an alternative framework for civil enforcement, focusing specifically on fiduciary guarantee execution within the rule of law paradigm. Employing a normative juridical method complemented by a conceptual and statutory approach, the study analyzes fiduciary law, restorative justice policies within the Indonesian National Police, and core principles of the rule of law, including legality, proportionality, legal certainty, and protection of fundamental rights. The article argues that police-led restorative justice can function as a legitimate mediating mechanism in fiduciary disputes when positioned not as an instrument of coercive execution, but as a structured facilitation of consensual dispute resolution between creditors and debtors. Such an approach reduces the potential for criminalization of civil disputes, prevents abuse of authority, and enhances substantive justice without undermining civil law doctrine. The findings demonstrate that restorative justice, when institutionally confined by clear legal standards and procedural safeguards, aligns with the rule of law by reinforcing accountability, preventing arbitrariness, and ensuring balanced protection of private rights. This study contributes to contemporary debates on civil enforcement reform by proposing a recalibrated model of police involvement that bridges civil law enforcement and restorative justice principles in a manner consistent with constitutionalism and legal certainty.