Juridical Analysis of Legal Due to Notary which unilaterally changes the contents of the Deed

Oct 13, 2025 by wbrum.org 99 views

Juridical Analysis of Legal Due to Notary which unilaterally changes the contents of the Deed

Introduction

In the realm of notary law, the Pekanbaru District Court's Decision No. 247/Pdt.G/2016/PN.PBR and the Riau Province Notary Regional Supervisory Council's Decision No. 02/PTS/MJ/PWN.Prov.Riau/XI/2012 have shed light on the serious problems related to notary actions that unilaterally change the contents of the Minuta Deed. This case study aims to provide a comprehensive juridical analysis of the legal consequences of such actions, the legal protection for the disadvantaged party, and the relevant court's decision.

Legal Consequences of Changes in the Content of the Deed

Changes in the contents of the Minuta Deed unilaterally by the notary have significant legal consequences. According to Article 48 paragraph 3 of the Notary Position Law (UUJN), a change of one party to the deed that has been signed can render the deed null and void. This kind of action not only has an impact on the value of the proof of the deed but can also result in the notary concerned subject to administrative, civil, and even criminal sanctions if it is proven to violate existing provisions.

In practice, errors in making deeds can indeed occur. However, the notary is expected to comply with the procedures set in the UUJN. If an error occurs, improvements must be made with the principle of caution and following the right procedures, such as making an addendum if needed. Thus, not only protects the legal position of the notary itself, but also maintains the interests of the parties involved in the deed.

The unilateral change of the deed's contents by the notary can be considered a breach of trust and a violation of the principles of fairness and justice. The notary's actions can have a significant impact on the parties involved, causing them to suffer financial losses and emotional distress. In such cases, the notary concerned may be held liable for damages and may face disciplinary action from the Notary Regional Supervisory Council.

Legal Protection for the Disadvantaged Party

Legal protection for those who are disadvantaged due to unilateral changes in the deed's contents are realized through sanctions imposed on the notary by the Notary Regional Supervisory Council. In the case of this study, the Supervisory Board imposed an oral reprimand sanction, which shows that there is an effort to maintain the integrity of the notary profession and protect the rights of the client.

In addition, those who feel disadvantaged are entitled to file a civil suit against the notary concerned to obtain compensation for losses suffered due to changes in the deed. However, in the decision of the Pekanbaru District Court, the lawsuit was declared unacceptable because it fulfilled the elements of the same case (Nebis in IDEM) with the decision of the Supervisory Council. This shows that every existing legal decision cannot be resisted by the same lawsuit in different courts.

Those who feel disadvantaged must still take other legal steps, such as a review if it is proven that there is new relevant evidence. The review process can provide an opportunity for the parties involved to present new evidence and arguments, which can influence the decision taken in the case.

Conclusion

From the description above, it can be concluded that the change in the contents of the deed unilaterally by the notary has a serious legal consequence, both for the deed concerned and for the notary who takes the action. Mistakes that arise can result in the deed not having legal force, as well as sanctions that may be imposed on a notary. Legal protection for disadvantaged parties is available through administrative sanctions and the necessary legal steps.

It is hoped that the relevant law can provide clearer provisions regarding the change in the contents of the deed. This is important so that the notary in carrying out his duties always prioritizes the principle of caution and following the procedures that have been established to avoid violations of UUJN and other regulations. In the future, it is expected that the panel of judges can consider new evidence that can influence the decisions taken in similar cases.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis of the case study, the following recommendations can be made:

The relevant law should provide clearer provisions regarding the change in the contents of the deed.
The notary should always prioritize the principle of caution and follow the procedures that have been established to avoid violations of UUJN and other regulations.
The panel of judges should consider new evidence that can influence the decisions taken in similar cases.
The Notary Regional Supervisory Council should impose stricter sanctions on notaries who unilaterally change the contents of the deed.
The parties involved in the deed should be aware of their rights and take necessary legal steps to protect their interests.

Limitations of the Study

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, the study is based on a single case study, which may not be representative of all cases involving unilateral changes in the deed's contents. Secondly, the study only focuses on the legal consequences of such actions and does not consider the social and economic implications. Finally, the study does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the relevant laws and regulations.

Future Research Directions

Future research should aim to address the limitations of this study. Firstly, a more comprehensive analysis of the relevant laws and regulations should be conducted. Secondly, the social and economic implications of unilateral changes in the deed's contents should be explored. Finally, a more in-depth analysis of the Notary Regional Supervisory Council's decisions and the Pekanbaru District Court's decisions should be conducted.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study has provided a comprehensive juridical analysis of the legal consequences of unilateral changes in the deed's contents by the notary. The study has highlighted the serious problems related to notary actions that unilaterally change the contents of the Minuta Deed and has provided recommendations for the relevant law and the notary profession. Future research should aim to address the limitations of this study and provide a more comprehensive understanding of the issues involved.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Juridical Analysis of Legal Due to Notary which unilaterally changes the contents of the Deed

Q: What is the Notary Position Law (UUJN)?

A: The Notary Position Law (UUJN) is a law that regulates the position and duties of notaries in Indonesia. It provides guidelines for notaries to perform their duties and ensures that they comply with the principles of fairness and justice.

Q: What are the consequences of a notary unilaterally changing the contents of a deed?

A: According to Article 48 paragraph 3 of the Notary Position Law (UUJN), a change of one party to the deed that has been signed can render the deed null and void. This can result in the notary concerned subject to administrative, civil, and even criminal sanctions if it is proven to violate existing provisions.

Q: What is the role of the Notary Regional Supervisory Council in regulating notary actions?

A: The Notary Regional Supervisory Council is responsible for supervising and regulating notary actions in a particular region. It has the authority to impose sanctions on notaries who violate the principles of fairness and justice or fail to comply with the Notary Position Law (UUJN).

Q: What are the legal protections available to parties who are disadvantaged due to unilateral changes in the deed's contents?

A: Parties who are disadvantaged due to unilateral changes in the deed's contents can file a civil suit against the notary concerned to obtain compensation for losses suffered. They can also appeal to the Notary Regional Supervisory Council to impose sanctions on the notary.

Q: What is the significance of the Pekanbaru District Court's Decision No. 247/Pdt.G/2016/PN.PBR and the Riau Province Notary Regional Supervisory Council's Decision No. 02/PTS/MJ/PWN.Prov.Riau/XI/2012?

A: The Pekanbaru District Court's Decision No. 247/Pdt.G/2016/PN.PBR and the Riau Province Notary Regional Supervisory Council's Decision No. 02/PTS/MJ/PWN.Prov.Riau/XI/2012 are significant because they highlight the serious problems related to notary actions that unilaterally change the contents of the Minuta Deed. They demonstrate the importance of ensuring that notaries comply with the principles of fairness and justice and the Notary Position Law (UUJN).

Q: What are the recommendations for the relevant law and the notary profession based on this study?

A: Based on this study, the following recommendations can be made:

The relevant law should provide clearer provisions regarding the change in the contents of the deed.
The notary should always prioritize the principle of caution and follow the procedures that have been established to avoid violations of UUJN and other regulations.
The panel of judges should consider new evidence that can influence the decisions taken in similar cases.
The Notary Regional Supervisory Council should impose stricter sanctions on notaries who unilaterally change the contents of the deed.
The parties involved in the deed should be aware of their rights and take necessary legal steps to protect their interests.

Q: What are the limitations of this study?

A: This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Firstly, the study is based on a single case study, which may not be representative of all cases involving unilateral changes in the deed's contents. Secondly, the study only focuses on the legal consequences of such actions and does not consider the social and economic implications. Finally, the study does not provide a comprehensive analysis of the relevant laws and regulations.

Q: What are the future research directions based on this study?

A: Future research should aim to address the limitations of this study. Firstly, a more comprehensive analysis of the relevant laws and regulations should be conducted. Secondly, the social and economic implications of unilateral changes in the deed's contents should be explored. Finally, a more in-depth analysis of the Notary Regional Supervisory Council's decisions and the Pekanbaru District Court's decisions should be conducted.

Q: What is the significance of this study in the context of notary law and practice?

A: This study is significant because it highlights the importance of ensuring that notaries comply with the principles of fairness and justice and the Notary Position Law (UUJN). It demonstrates the need for clearer provisions regarding the change in the contents of the deed and the importance of imposing stricter sanctions on notaries who unilaterally change the contents of the deed.