Marantika, Rama (2025) Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi yang tidak Dilaksanakan Dalam Pengujian Undang-undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2004 Jo Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 Tentang Jabatan Notaris Ditinjau dari Asas Final Binding. Masters thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 221021128.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (3MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The Constitutional Court's Decisions Not Implemented in the Review of Law Number 30 of 2004 in conjunction with Law Number 2 of 2014 on the Position of Notary reflects a lack of compliance by the executors of the Constitutional Court’s rulings. A phrase previously declared to contradict the 1945 Constitution has reappeared in subsequent legislation, resulting in issues due to the reinstatement of a phrase in a statutory article that the Constitutional Court had annulled, thus causing the phrase to once again become the focus of legal disputes. This study addresses the following legal issues: (1) The Status of the Phrase Annulled by the Constitutional Court but Reintroduced in Law Number 30 of 2004 in conjunction with Law Number 2 of 2014 on the Position of Notary, in Light of the Principle of Final and Binding, and (2) Legal Protection for Notaries Following the Constitutional Court’s Decision Number 22/PUU-XVIII/2019 on Law Number 30 of 2004 in conjunction with Law Number 2 of 2014 on the Position of Notary. The research method used is normative legal research, which involves examining literature and secondary data as primary sources, by exploring relevant regulations and literature on the issues being studied. From a methodological perspective, this study is descriptive. The descriptive method serves to provide an overview or detailed description of the object under study through data or samples collected on the main issues. Research findings include: (1) Based on the principle of final and binding, the Constitutional Court's rulings have clear and definitive legal consequences, with no further legal recourse. Articles, sections, or parts of laws deemed unconstitutional should not be reincorporated into new legislative drafts. In Constitutional Court Decision Number 49/PUU-X/2012, the review of Article 66 Paragraph (1) removed the authority of the Regional Supervisory Council (RSC). However, Law No. 2/2014 reintroduced the annulled phrase in Article 66 Paragraph (1), only changing the name while retaining the same functions and authority, with RSC becoming the Notary Honorary Council (NHC). This implies indirect non-compliance by the House of Representatives and the President with the Constitutional Court’s ruling. (2) Legal Protection for Notaries Following Constitutional Court Decision Number 22/PUU-XVIII/2019 is provided by the NHC. Notaries are permitted to directly comply with summonses from investigators, prosecutors, or judges without going through the NHC’s mechanism. If a Notary chooses to proceed in this manner, they assume full responsibility for any legal consequences. Constitutional Court Decision No. 49/PUU-X/2012 did not remove the Notary’s right to withhold certain information but instead removed the special procedural privilege, ensuring the continued protection of the Notary’s role as a Public Official in the exercise of their duties.

Actions (login required)

View Item