Examination and Confiscation of Notarial Deeds for The Purpose of Criminal Law Enforcement without Approval from The Notary Honorary Council

Moh. Roziq Saifulloh

doi:10.30641/dejure.2022.V22.423-436

Examination and Confiscation of Notarial Deeds for The Purpose of Criminal Law Enforcement without Approval from The Notary Honorary Council

Moh. Roziq Saifulloh

Abstract

The Notary’s right of refusal through the approval of the Notary Honorary Council (NHC) hinders the practice of criminal law enforcement because it is absolute and there is no further (final) legal remedy, even though a similar policy (beleid) has been revoked by the Constitutional Court. In practice, the notary cannot be examined by investigators, public prosecutors, or judges, unless they have previously obtained NHC approval, as regulated in Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law Number 30 of 2004 as amended by Law Number 2 of 2014 (Notary Position Law). Even if Notary Honorary Council refuses, then there will only be further legal remedies through a lawsuit by the State Administrative Court. In fact, the provisions regarding the Notary’s right of refusal should be ‘determination’ by court decisions (vonnis) as regulated in Article 170 of the Criminal Code, and not ‘administrative determination’ (beschikking) through NHC approval based on the delegation of supervisory authority from state institutions. This paper concludes that every law enforcer in criminal cases (police, prosecutors, and judges) can examine a Notary with the condition of special permission from the Head of the local District Court, approval of direct interested parties, or NHC approval as stipulated in Article 43 of the Criminal Code in conjunction with Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Notary Position Law. This paper is normative research with a statutory approach, conceptual approach, and case approach.

Keywords

authority; examination; notary; approval; criminal

Full Text:

PDF PDF (Bahasa Indonesia)

References

Abdussamad, Zuchri. Metode Penelitian Kualitatif.

Makasar: Syakir Media Press, 2021.

Arliman. S, Laurensius. “Mewujudkan Penegakan Hukum Yang Baik Di Negara Hukum Indonesia.” Dialogia Iuridica: Jurnal Hukum Bisnis dan Investasi 11, no. 1 (2019): 1–20.

Atmadja, I Dewa Gede, I Nyoman Putu Budiarta. Teori-Teori Hukum. Malang: Setara Press, 2018.

Din, Teresia. “Pertanggungjawaban Notaris terhadap Akta Otentik Terindikasi Tindak Pidana.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 19, no. 2 (2019): 171–184.

Dirdjosisworo, Sudjono. Sosiologi Hukum.

Pekanbaru: Alaf Riau, 2018.

Donald, Henry Lbn Toruan. “Legalitas Keberadaan Majelis Pengawas Notaris dan Majelis Kehormatan Notaris.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 20, no. 3 (2020): 435–458.

Efendi, A’an, dan Dyah Ochtorina Susanti. Logika & Argumentasi Hukum. Pertama. Jakarta: Kencana, 2020.

Hamidi, Jazim. “Paradigma Baru Pembentukan Dan Analisis Peraturan Daerah (Studi Atas Perda Pelayanan Publik Dan Perda Keterbukaan Informasi Publik).” Jurnal Hukum Ius Quia Iustum 18, no. 3 (2011): 336–362.

Hoecke, Mark Van. “Legal doctrine: Which Method(s) for What Kind of discipline?” In Methodologies of legal research : which kind of method for what kind of discipline?, 1–18. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2011.

Ibrahim, Tiara Rezky Prastika. “Kewenangan Terhadap Penyitaan Minuta Akta Sebagai Barang Bukti Dalam Perkara Pidana.” Universitas Hasanuddin, 2020.

Kamarusdiana. Filsafat Hukum. Jakarta: UIN Jakarta Press, 2018.

Karamoy, Roy Victor, dan Maarthen Y. Tapanguma. “Peran Majelis Kehormatan Notaris Terkait Merekomendasi Untuk Kepentingan Pemeriksaan Aparat Hukum Terhadap Notaris.” Lex Crimen X, no. 13 (2021): 146–

Lailam, Tanto. “Membangun Constitutional Morality Hakim Konstitusi Diindonesia.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 20, no. 4 (2020): 511–529.

Latumenten, Pieter. “Prosedur Penegakan Hukum Pidana Berkaitan Dengan Pelaksanaan Jabatan Notaris Dan Akta Aktanya.” Diakses Juli 5, 2020. ikanotariatui.com/prosedur- penegakan-hukum-pidana/#_ftn3.

Mahkamah Konstitusi. “Dianggap Rugikan Jaksa dan Publik, UU Jabatan Notaris Diuji.” Diakses Juli 7, 2022. https://www.mkri.id/ index.php?page=web.Berita&id=16261.

———. “Permohonan Uji UU Jabatan Notaris Tidak Dapat Diterima.” Last modified 2020. Diakses Juli 6, 2022. https:// www.mkri.id/index.php?page=web. Berita&id=16401&menu=2.

Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Universitas Kristen Satya Wacana. Laporan Penelitian Legitimasi Praktik Overruling. Jakarta, 2018.

Mas, Marwan. Hukum dan Konstitusi Kelembagaan Negara. Depok: Rajawali Press, 2018.

Mochtar, Zainal Arifin, dan Eddy O.S Hiariej. Dasar-Dasar Ilmu Hukum: Memahami Kaidah, Teori, Asas dan Filsafat Hukum. Jakarta: Perpustakaan Nasional RI, 2021.

Muhaimin. “Restoratif Justice dalam Penyelesaian Tindak Pidana Ringan.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 19, no. 2 (2019): 185–206.

Muladi. Hak Asasi Manusia: Hakikat, Konsep, dan Implikasinya Prespektif Hukum dan Masyarakat. Bandung: Reflika Aditama, 2009.

Ningsih, Ayu, Faisal A.Rani, dan Adwani Adwani. “Kedudukan Notaris sebagai Mediator Sengketa Kenotariatan Terkait dengan Kewajiban Penyuluhan Hukum.” Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum 13, no. 2 (2019):

–227.

Nurdin, Ismail, dan Sri Hartati. Metodologi Penelitian Sosial. Surabaya: Media Sahabat Cendekia, 2019.

Pusat Litbang Kejaksaan Agung RI. “Ijin Pemeriksaan Terhadap Pejabat Negara dalam Proses Penegakan Hukum.” Last modified

Diakses Juli 5, 2022. kejaksaan.go.id/ unit_kejaksaan.php?idu=28&idsu=35&idke

=0&hal=2&id=55&bc.

Rahardjo, Satjipto. Negara Hukum yang Membahagiakan Rakyatnya. Yogyakarta: Genta Publishing, 2009.

Ramadhan, Febriansyah, Xavier Nugraha, dan Patricia Inge Felany. “Penataan Ulang Kewenangan Penyidikan Dan Penuntutan Dalam Penegakan Hukum Pelanggaran Ham Berat.” Veritas et Justitia 6, no. 1 (2020):

–212.

Rini, Nicken Sarwo. “Penyalahgunaan Kewenangan Administrasi Dalam Undang Undang Tindak Pidana Korupsi.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 18, no. 2 (2018):

–273.

Santoso, Bambang. Politik Hukum. Pamulang: UNPAM Press, 2021.

Sena, I Made, dan I Wayan Novy Purwanto. “Inkonsistensi Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Membatalkan Majelis Pengawas Daerah Dan Majelis Kehormatan Notaris.” Jurnal Kertha Semaya 9, no. 8 (2021): 1278–1288.

Simatupang, Taufik Hidayat. “Adult Age in Marriage in Indonesia (Theoretical Study of the Application of the Lex Posterior Derogat Legi Priori Principle).” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 21, no. 2 (2021): 213–222.

Soekanto, Soerjono. Pokok-pokok Sosiologi Hukum. Jakarta: Raja Grafindo Persada, 2003.

Sosiawan, Ulang Mangun. “Konstruksi Pra Peradilan Melalui Rekonstruksi Hakim Komisaris sebagai Perlindungan Hak Tersangka dalam Sistem Peradilan Indonesia.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 18, no. 1 (2018): 73–92.

Triwulandari, Ni Gusti Agung Ayu Mas. “Problematika Pemberian Bantuan Hukum Struktural Dan Non Struktural Kaitannya Dengan Asas Equality Before The Law.” Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum 14, no. 1 (2020): 539–552.

Winata, Muhammad Reza. “Politik Hukum dan Konstitusionalitas Kewenangan Pembubaran

Organisasi Kemasyarakatan Berbadan Hukum oleh Pemerintah.” Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure 18, no. 4 (2018): 445–464.

Wulandari, Nisa, dan Hayat Sholihin. “Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Dan Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Notaris Yang Diperiksa Oleh Penyidik Dalam Tindak Pidana Keterangan Palsu Pada Akta Otentik.” Jurnal Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum 1, no. 2 (2020): 274–282.

Article Metric

Abstract this article has been read : 753 times
PDF file viewed/downloaded : 414 times PDF (Bahasa Indonesia) file viewed/downloaded : 629 times

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2022.V22.423-436