LEGAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT DECISION NUMBER 49/PUU-X/2012 ON THE POSITION OF NOTARY

Abstract

The Constitutional Court Decision Number 49/PUU-X/2012, which annulled Article 66, paragraph (1), of Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning the Position of Notary, was a turning point in the supervision and protection system for the notary profession in Indonesia. This study aims to determine and analyze the legal and sociological implications of Constitutional Court Decision Number 49/PUU-X/2012 regarding the position of notaries and the form of legal protection that should be provided to notaries after the decision. The research method used is socio-legal. The results of the study reveal two things: First, the Constitutional Court decision has legal and sociological implications. Juridically, the Constitutional Court's decision has implications for the possibility of notaries providing information that has implications for violating the principle of client confidentiality, changing the legal relationship between notaries and clients which was originally a private relationship into a public legal relationship, the notary's rights and obligations to disobey are void if the law orders the notary to reveal secrets and provide information to the requesting party such as investigators, prosecutors or judges, and the notary's rights to guarantee a fair examination process are likely to be violated by the Constitutional Court's decision. Sociologically, the decision means the public no longer trusts notaries if the contents of the deeds they make, which should be confidential, are revealed by the notary by law in the interests of investigation and/or examination in court, and the client will sue the notary for revealing their secrets. Second, the forms of legal protection provided to notaries following the Constitutional Court ruling include the obligation for law enforcement to request information from senior notaries who are members of the Notary Honorary Council (Majelis Kehormatan Notaris or MKN) for notarial examinations, both for investigative purposes and for court hearings. The client's right to privacy (the right to rebuttal) must remain protected throughout the examination process, and legal sanctions are imposed on law enforcement officials who violate the principle of client confidentiality inherent in notaries' roles and functions.