MIMBAR YUSTITIA : Jurnal Hukum dan Hak Asasi Manusia

Responsibility of Notaries in Making Sale and Purchase Agreement Where the Object Is in Dispute

Rita Bayu Astuti — 2025-12-19

The purpose of this research is to analyze and find out the Notary's responsibility in making the sale and purchase binding agreement that he made. The approach method in this research is normative juridical. The data used are primary and secondary data obtained through interviews and literature study, data analysis was carried out by analytical descriptive. The results of the research concluded: The Notary's responsibility in making the sale and purchase binding agreement that he made is if the sale and purchase agreement on land signed and made by a Notary made an error, it is not in accordance with the procedure for making it, then the Notary has legal responsibility to whom and to whom. who the deed of sale and purchase agreement is made, and if the Notary is proven to have made a mistake, whether intentional or unintentional, then the legal consequences that arise can be subject to sanctions according to the level of error or error in the binding deed of sale and purchase made by a Notary may be subject to sanctions including administrative sanctions. The solution to making a deed of sale and purchase binding agreement (PPJB) in the event of a dispute is through deliberation or through the courts. The aggrieved party can sue the party who caused the loss in court or by canceling the agreement that has been made by the parties. Dispute resolution using non-litigation or Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is actually a family dispute resolution model compared to dispute resolution through judicial institutions which tend to be confrontational, taking into account wins and losses and ignores social elements in society. While the settlement through the judiciary is carried out if the deliberation efforts are not reached, then the settlement must be through the courts.

Professional Code of Ethics for Managing Interreligious Cohesion in the Digital Era

Guruh David Agus — 2025-12-25

A professional code of ethics is a written guideline that affirms values, norms, and professional conduct. It clarifies professional ethics, prevents bias, safeguards integrity, and builds public trust. Binding in nature, any violation is subject to sanctions and must be upheld by all members of the profession. Individuals in any vocational field, especially those engaged with religious affairs, are equally obliged to honor their professional code of ethics. On World Human Rights Day 2024, Imparsial observed that religious actors in Indonesia failed to strengthen social cohesion, while state apparatuses were permissive toward groups undermining religious freedom. This research aims to answer: What if the professional code of ethics were employed as a framework of managing interreligious social cohesion in Indonesia’s digital era? This qualitative and explanatory study positions TAP MPR No. 6/2001 on the Ethics of Living as a Nation as its material object, and Jimly Asshiddiqie’s concept of the National Ethics Court (MEN) as its formal object. In Indonesia’s digital era information unavoidably finds pathways into the public sphere regardless of boundaries or constraints. As corporeal and digital actions increasingly converge the digital realm paradoxically demands corporeal solutions, particularly in contexts where ethical integrity is essential. TAP MPR No. 6/2001 encompasses socio-cultural ethics, political governance ethics, and fair legal enforcement ethics as a constitutional foundation for interreligious cohesion. Asshiddiqie envisions MEN as the culmination of Indonesia’s ethical judicial process, integrating institutional ethical systems. Guided by MEN’s framework, national ethics can reinforce the role of professional codes, offering more relevant and effective sanctions to guide religious-sector actors in upholding their ethical obligations and preserving interreligious social cohesion.

Legal Consequences Of Self-Promotion By Notaries Through Social Media

Yustisya Zaharon — 2025-12-31

Social media is one example of the many uses of technology due to the current of globalization. One profession that uses social media is the profession of notary to promote themselves. The form of self-promotion by Notaries through social media is a violation of Article 4 paragraph (3) of the Notary Code of Ethics, that Notaries are prohibited from publishing or promoting themselves, either alone or together by including their name and position, using print and/or electronic media, in the form of advertisements, congratulations, thanks, marketing activities, sponsorship activities, whether in the social, religious, or sports fields. The purpose of this study is to determine the results of legal self-promotion by notaries through social media. The research method used is normative juridical with a regulatory-statute approach and a conseptual approach. The results of the study revealed that the legal consequences for notaries who promote themselves through social media are only regulated in Article 6 paragraph (1) and (2) of the Notary Code of Ethics, the legal consequences of paragraph (1) include: Reprimand, Warning, Schorsing (temporary dismissal) from the Association, Onzetting (dismissal) from the Association, and Dishonorable Dismissal from the Association. Then, paragraph (2) states that sanctions imposed on members who violate the Code of Ethics are adjusted according to the quantity and quality of the violations committed. In conclusion, self-promotion by Notaries through social media is only regulated in Article 4 paragraph (3) of the Notary Code of Ethics. There is still ambiguity in Article 17 paragraph (1) letter i of the Notary Law, which only stipulates that Notaries are prohibited from engaging in other work that conflicts with religious norms, morality, or propriety that could affect the honor and dignity of the Notary position. However, it does not further regulate what work falls within the qualifications to affect the honor and dignity of the Notary position. This certainly creates legal uncertainty for Notaries.