Juridical Study Of Revocation Article 66 Paragraph (1) Of UUJN No. 30 Of 2004 By The Constitutional Court (MK Decision No. 49/PUU-X/2012) And The Issuance Of Law No. 2 Of 2014 Concerning Amendment To Law No. 30 Of 2004 Concerning Notary Position

by ADMIN 246 views

Introduction

The Notary Position Law (UUJN) No. 30 of 2004 is a crucial legislation that governs the role and responsibilities of notaries in Indonesia. Article 66 paragraph (1) of this law is a significant provision that provides legal protection for notaries as public officials. However, on March 23, 2013, the Constitutional Court, through Decision No. 49/PUU-X/2012, surprised many parties by revoking this article. This decision has far-reaching implications for the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system as a whole.

Background of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004

Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 is a vital provision that protects notaries from arbitrary legal intervention. This article provides that notaries can only be called and examined in a criminal case with the permission of the Notary Honorary Council (MKN). This provision is essential to ensure that notaries can carry out their duties and responsibilities without fear of unfair legal intervention.

Revocation of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004

The revocation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 by the Constitutional Court has significant implications for the notary profession. Without this provision, notaries are no longer protected from arbitrary legal intervention. This creates a situation where notaries can be the subject of examination without adequate legal protection. This of course has the potential to reduce the independence and professionalism of notaries in carrying out their duties.

Analysis of Legal Consequences

The revocation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 has far-reaching implications for the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system. One of the direct implications is that the police no longer need permission from the MKN to call and examine the notary in a criminal case. This creates a situation where a notary can be the subject of examination without adequate legal protection. This of course has the potential to reduce the independence and professionalism of the notary in carrying out their duties.

Impact on the Notary Profession

The revocation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 has a significant impact on the notary profession. Notaries are no longer protected from arbitrary legal intervention, which can affect their integrity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities as public officials. This can also lead to a loss of public trust in the notary profession.

Impact on the Indonesian Legal System

The revocation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 also has implications for the Indonesian legal system. The notary profession plays a crucial role in the legal system, and the revocation of this article can affect the integrity and professionalism of notaries in carrying out their duties. This can also lead to a loss of public trust in the legal system as a whole.

The Need for MKN Formation

The formation of the MKN is essential to provide legal protection for notaries. The MKN is expected to function as an institution that is able to provide protection to the notary and ensure that the legal process that involves them remains fair and not arbitrary. Without MKN, the notary is in a vulnerable position, which can affect their integrity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities as public officials.

Challenges in Forming the MKN

The formation of the MKN is not without challenges. One of the main challenges is the lack of clear guidelines and regulations on the formation and functioning of the MKN. This can lead to confusion and uncertainty among notaries and other stakeholders.

Importance of MKN Formation

The formation of the MKN is essential to provide legal protection for notaries. The MKN is expected to function as an institution that is able to provide protection to the notary and ensure that the legal process that involves them remains fair and not arbitrary. Without MKN, the notary is in a vulnerable position, which can affect their integrity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities as public officials.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the revocation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 by the Constitutional Court has significant implications for the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system. The formation of the MKN is essential to provide legal protection for notaries and ensure that the legal process that involves them remains fair and not arbitrary. Without MKN, the notary is in a vulnerable position, which can affect their integrity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities as public officials.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the legal consequences of the revocation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004, the following recommendations are made:

  • The government should take concrete steps to form the MKN and optimize its function as an institution that provides legal protection for notaries.
  • The government should provide clear guidelines and regulations on the formation and functioning of the MKN to avoid confusion and uncertainty among notaries and other stakeholders.
  • The government should ensure that the MKN is able to function independently and impartially to provide effective legal protection for notaries.

Future Research Directions

Future research directions on this topic could include:

  • An in-depth analysis of the implications of the revocation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 on the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system.
  • An examination of the challenges and obstacles in forming the MKN and optimizing its function as an institution that provides legal protection for notaries.
  • An analysis of the impact of the MKN on the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations, including:

  • The study is based on a limited number of sources and data.
  • The study does not provide an in-depth analysis of the implications of the revocation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 on the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system.
  • The study does not provide a comprehensive examination of the challenges and obstacles in forming the MKN and optimizing its function as an institution that provides legal protection for notaries.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the revocation of Article 66 paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 by the Constitutional Court has significant implications for the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system. The formation of the MKN is essential to provide legal protection for notaries and ensure that the legal process that involves them remains fair and not arbitrary. Without MKN, the notary is in a vulnerable position, which can affect their integrity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities as public officials.

Q: What is the significance of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004?

A: Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 is a crucial provision that provides legal protection for notaries as public officials. It ensures that notaries can only be called and examined in a criminal case with the permission of the Notary Honorary Council (MKN).

Q: Why was Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 revoked by the Constitutional Court?

A: The Constitutional Court revoked Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 through Decision No. 49/PUU-X/2012, citing that the provision was unconstitutional and violated the principles of equality and fairness.

Q: What are the implications of the revocation of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004?

A: The revocation of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 has significant implications for the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system. Notaries are no longer protected from arbitrary legal intervention, which can affect their integrity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities as public officials.

Q: What is the role of the Notary Honorary Council (MKN) in the notary profession?

A: The MKN is an institution that provides legal protection for notaries and ensures that the legal process that involves them remains fair and not arbitrary. The MKN is expected to function independently and impartially to provide effective legal protection for notaries.

Q: Why is the formation of the MKN essential?

A: The formation of the MKN is essential to provide legal protection for notaries and ensure that the legal process that involves them remains fair and not arbitrary. Without MKN, the notary is in a vulnerable position, which can affect their integrity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities as public officials.

Q: What are the challenges in forming the MKN?

A: The formation of the MKN is not without challenges. One of the main challenges is the lack of clear guidelines and regulations on the formation and functioning of the MKN. This can lead to confusion and uncertainty among notaries and other stakeholders.

Q: What are the recommendations for the government to address the implications of the revocation of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004?

A: The government should take concrete steps to form the MKN and optimize its function as an institution that provides legal protection for notaries. The government should also provide clear guidelines and regulations on the formation and functioning of the MKN to avoid confusion and uncertainty among notaries and other stakeholders.

Q: What are the future research directions on this topic?

A: Future research directions on this topic could include an in-depth analysis of the implications of the revocation of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 on the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system. Another direction could be an examination of the challenges and obstacles in forming the MKN and optimizing its function as an institution that provides legal protection for notaries.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: This study has several limitations, including the limited number of sources and data used. The study also does not provide an in-depth analysis of the implications of the revocation of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 on the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system. Additionally, the study does not provide a comprehensive examination of the challenges and obstacles in forming the MKN and optimizing its function as an institution that provides legal protection for notaries.

Q: What is the conclusion of this study?

A: In conclusion, the revocation of Article 66 Paragraph (1) of UUJN No. 30 of 2004 by the Constitutional Court has significant implications for the notary profession and the Indonesian legal system. The formation of the MKN is essential to provide legal protection for notaries and ensure that the legal process that involves them remains fair and not arbitrary. Without MKN, the notary is in a vulnerable position, which can affect their integrity in carrying out their duties and responsibilities as public officials.