Article Sidebar

Submitted
Aug 21, 2025
Published
Aug 25, 2025
Download
Pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 87 Download : 43

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The Deed of Statement of Meeting Resolution, as an authentic deed, must be read and signed before a notary in accordance with Article 16 paragraph (1) letter (m) of the Notary Office Law. In practice, however, this requirement is often neglected, leading to legal uncertainty. This study aims to analyze the legal consequences and legal certainty of deeds that are not read and signed before a notary. The research applies normative juridical methods with legislation, case, and conceptual approaches, supported by legal literature as primary and secondary sources. The analysis uses legal interpretation and construction techniques. The findings show that the absence of reading and signing before a notary nullifies the authenticity of the deed, resulting in new legal conditions, the alteration or termination of legal relationships, and potential sanctions. Legal certainty requires clear regulations, consistent application, approval by citizens, independent judiciary, and enforceable court decisions. The study recommends legal outreach by supervisory councils to notaries regarding due diligence principles and updated regulations, as well as public legal education on the validity of authentic deeds.

Keywords

Authenticity of Deed Legal Certainty Notary Law

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Abdullah, Nawaaf. "Kedudukan Dan Kewenangan Notaris Dalam Membuat Akta Otentik." JURNAL AKTA 4, no. 4 (2017): 655–64. https://doi.org/10.30659/akta.v4i4.2508
  2. Adolf, Jozan Jozan, and Widhi Handoko. "Eksistensi Wewenang Notaris Dalam Pembuatan Akta Bidang Pertanahan." Notarius 13, no. 1 (2020): 181–92. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v13i1.29313
  3. Agustin, Ika Yuli, and Ghansham Anand. "Proposing Notaries’ Deed Digitalization in Indonesia: A Legal Perspective." Lentera Hukum 8, no. 1 (2021): 49–72.
  4. Arsy, Eudea Adeli, Hanif Nur Widhiyanti, and Patricia Audrey Ruslijanto. "Tanggung Jawab Notaris Terhadap Akta Yang Cacat Hukum Dan Tidak Sesuai Dengan Ketentuan Pembuatan Akta Dalam Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris." Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum 6, no. 1 (2021): 130–40.
  5. Ballan, Othman Ballan Othman. "Tanggung Jawab Notaris Terhadap Rusaknya Minuta Akta Yang Disimpan Oleh Notaris." Wacana Paramarta: Jurnal Ilmu Hukum 21, no. 1 (2022): 57–67. https://doi.org/10.32816/paramarta.v21i1.171
  6. Dewi, Luh Anastasia Trisna. "Legal Aspect of Cyber Notary in Indonesia." Journal of Digital Law and Policy 1, no. 1 (2021): 37–44. https://doi.org/10.58982/jdlp.v1i1.92
  7. Elvina, Mia. "Implikasi Hukum Terhadap Akta Yang Dibuat Notaris Yang Tidak Dibacakan Dan Ditandatangani Secara Bersama-Sama." Universitas Islam Indonesia, 2020.
  8. Embang, Thea Farina, and Elin Sudiarti. "Analisis Yuridis Penyimpanan Minuta Akta Notaris Secara Elektronik." UNES Law Review 6, no. 1 (2023): 1217–23. https://doi.org/10.31933/unesrev.v6i1.914
  9. Fitri, Aulia Ineke, and Siti Mahmudah. "Peran Notaris Dalam Pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham (RUPS) Perseroan Terbatas Di Kota Semarang." AL-MANHAJ: Jurnal Hukum Dan Pranata Sosial Islam 5, no. 2 (2023): 1399–410. https://doi.org/10.37680/almanhaj.v5i2.3198
  10. Hasfarevy, Tiara. "Peran Dewan Kehormatan Daerah Dalam Penyelesaian Pelanggaran Kode Etik Notaris Di Kota PekanbaruPeran Dewan Kehormatan Daerah Dalam Penyelesaian Pelanggaran Kode Etik Notaris Di Kota Pekanbaru." Recital Review 3, no. 1 (2021): 40–63. https://doi.org/10.22437/rr.v3i1.11270
  11. Hussy, Maharani Millenia, and Benny Djaja. "Comparison of Notary Law in Indonesia and Singapore." Interdisciplinary Social Studies 2, no. 7 (2023): 2157–63.
  12. Ibrahim, Johnny. Teori & Metodologi Penelitian Hukum Normatif. Bayumedia, 2012.
  13. Imtiyaz, Lana, Budi Santoso, and Adya Paramita Prabandari. "Reaktualisasi Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris Terkait Digitalisasi Minuta Akta Oleh Notaris." Notarius 13, no. 1 (2020): 97–110. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v13i1.29166
  14. Indrawati, Ana. "Roles and Responsibilities of the Notary in Establishment of Cooperatives." LEGAL BRIEF 12, no. 3 (2023): 310–18. https://doi.org/10.35335/legal.v12i3.834
  15. Iriantoro, Agung. "Position, Tenure And Responsibility Of The Notary In Carrying Out The Position Of Notary." Protection: Journal Of Land And Environmental Law 1, no. 2 (2022): 66–74. None. https://doi.org/10.38142/pjlel.v1i2.515
  16. Latifah, Latifah. "Tanggung Jawab Notaris Dalam Pelanggaran Kode Etik Notaris." Officium Notarium 1, no. 1 (2021): 144–54. https://doi.org/10.20885/JON.vol1.iss1.art15
  17. M. Hadjon, Philipus. Pengantar Hukum Administrasi Indonesia. Gadjah Mada University Press, 1997.
  18. Marzuki, Peter Mahmud. Penelitian Hukum. Kencana, 2017.
  19. Munandir, Jonathan Adi Biran, and Thohir Luth. "Tanggung Jawab Notaris Atas Akta Pernyataan Keputusan
  20. Rapat." Jurnal Cakrawala Hukum 8, no. 1 (2017): 55–63. https://doi.org/10.26905/idjch.v8i1.1731
  21. Musdiyanti, Wiwin, Muttaqin Choiri, Nova Dwi Oktafiana, Devy Rahmada Faulina, Diana Rochmawati, and Mufridatul Imama. "Etika Dan Pertanggungjawaban Moral Profesi Notaris (Kajian Undang-Undang No. 2 Tahun 2014 Dan Kode Etik Notaris Tahun 2015)." Jurnal Hukum Kenotariatan Otentik's 4, no. 1 (2022): 12–28. https://doi.org/10.35814/otentik.v4i1.3342
  22. Nurmadany, Rizka. "Mitigasi Risiko Dalam Pembacaan Dan Penandatanganan Akta (Studi Penghadap Yang Tidak Datang Bersamaan Ke Hadapan Notaris)." Officium Notarium 1, no. 1 (2021): 194–203. https://doi.org/10.20885/JON.vol1.iss1.art20
  23. Prasetyawati, Betty Ivana, and Paramita Prananingtyas. "Peran Kode Etik Notaris Dalam Membangun Integritas Notaris Di Era 4.0." Notarius 15, no. 1 (2022): 310–23. https://doi.org/10.14710/nts.v15i1.46043
  24. Pratama, Brilian, Happy Warsito, and Herman Adriansyah. "Prinsip Kehati-Hatian Dalam Membuat Akta Oleh Notaris." Repertorium: Jurnal Ilmiah Hukum Kenotariatan 11, no. 1 (2022): 24–33. https://doi.org/10.28946/rpt.v11i1.1640
  25. Purba, Sarah Putri F., Hasim Purba, and Suprayitno S. "Pertanggungjawaban Hukum Notaris Terhadap Pemalsuan Pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Luar Biasa (Studi Putusan No. 898/Pid.B/2022/PN.Jkt.Brt)." Socius: Jurnal Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial 2, no. 5 (2024). https://ojs.daarulhuda.or.id/index.php/Socius/article/view/1073
  26. Rifandhana, Raditya Feda, Zaneta Larissa Athalia, Lailatun Nur Kumala Sari, et al. "Efektifitas Kewenangan Pemerintah Terhadap Pembaharuan Tugas Notaris Dalam Hak Kekayaan Intelektual." Cendekia: Jurnal Hukum, Sosial Dan Humaniora 2, no. 4 (2024): 909–17. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14550811
  27. Sagala, Elviana. "Tanggung Jawab Notaris Dalam Menjalankan Tugas Profesinya." JURNAL ILMIAH ADVOKASI 4, no. 1 (2016): 25–33. https://doi.org/10.36987/jiad.v4i1.349
  28. Soekanto, Soerjono. Pengantar Penelitian Hukum. UI Press, 2007.
  29. Soeroso, R. Pengantar Ilmu Hukum. 8th ed. Sinar Grafika, 295AD.
  30. Wibowo, Rifdah Oktavia, and Aminah Aminah. "Implementasi Peraturan Kode Etik Notaris Dalam Menjalankan Profesi Kepada Masyarakat." AL-MANHAJ: Jurnal Hukum Dan Pranata Sosial Islam 5, no. 2 (2023): 2143–50. https://doi.org/10.37680/almanhaj.v5i2.3561
  31. Yana, Anggri, and Achmad Faishal. "Penunjukan Notaris Pengganti Sebagai Penerima Protokol Dari Notaris Yang Bermasalah Hukum." Al-Zayn: Jurnal Ilmu Sosial & Hukum 3, no. 4 (2025): 3428–39. https://doi.org/10.61104/alz.v3i4.1811
  32. Yasin, Helsi. "Perlindungan Hukum Bagi Notaris Dalam Pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat Berdasarkan Pemalsuan Keputusan Sirkuler Perseroan Terbatas." Unes Journal of Swara Justisia 9, no. 1 (2025): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.31933/ngaec160
  33. Yudianto, Bambang, Felicitas Sri Marniati, and Putra Hutomo. "Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Notaris Dari Pembuatan Akta Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat Terkait Notulen Rapat Umum Pemegang Saham Yang Dipalsukan." Birokrasi: JURNAL ILMU HUKUM DAN TATA NEGARA 1, no. 3 (2023): 208–25. https://doi.org/10.55606/birokrasi.v1i3.583