Normative Disharmony in Notary Summoning Procedures Analyzing the Conflict Between Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Position of Notary and the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: Dec 16, 2025
DOI: https://doi.org/10.62885/legisci.v3i3.992
Keywords:
Notary Summoning, Normative Conflict, MKN Approval, Legal Certainty, Lex Specialis

Main Article Content

Dr. KRA Michael Josef Widijatmoko
Universitas Djuanda, Bogor
Mrs. Lisza Nurchayatie
Universitas Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jakarta

Abstract

The enactment of Indonesia's 2025 Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP 2025) has created a critical normative conflict with Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Position of Notary (UUJN), specifically regarding procedures for summoning notaries and seizing their deeds. While the UUJN mandates prior approval from the Notary Honorary Council (MKN) as a procedural safeguard, KUHAP 2025 introduces emergency seizure provisions that potentially bypass this requirement, undermining legal certainty and professional integrity. This article aims to analyze this normative disharmony, assess its impact on fundamental legal principles, and propose a harmonization model. Employing a normative legal research methodology, the study finds that the conflict erodes legal certainty, justice, legal protection, and transparency, placing notaries in an untenable "double bind." It concludes that a comprehensive reconstruction—encompassing legislative amendments to reinforce lex specialis, institutional collaboration, and technological modernization of evidence handling—is imperative. The implication is that such multi-dimensional solutions are essential to reconcile effective law enforcement with the protective safeguards necessary for the notarial profession and the rule of law in Indonesia.


 

Article Details

How to Cite
Widijatmoko, M. J., & Nurchayatie, L. (2025). Normative Disharmony in Notary Summoning Procedures: Analyzing the Conflict Between Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Position of Notary and the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code. Jurnal Legisci, 3(3), 273–295. https://doi.org/10.62885/legisci.v3i3.992
Issue
Vol. 3 No. 3 (2025): Vol 3 No 3 December 2025
Section
Articles
Creative Commons License

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

Author Biographies

Dr. KRA Michael Josef Widijatmoko, Universitas Djuanda, Bogor

 

   

Mrs. Lisza Nurchayatie, Universitas Pembangunan Nasional “Veteran” Jakarta

 

 

References

Arsono, Y., Mashdurohatun, A., & Prasetyo, T. (2023). Reconstruction of Regulation of the Authenticity of Judges in Assessing Authentic Deeds as a Tool of Evidence in Civil Disputes in Court is Not Based on Values of Dignified Justice. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 131, 95. https://doi.org/10.7176/jlpg/131-10.

Bingyuan, M., & Zhaoxun, C. (2025). Theory of Interest Jurisprudence for the Development of the Notarial System. Journal of Advanced Research in Social and Behavioural Sciences, 38(1), 15-26. https://doi.org/10.37934/jarsbs.38.1.1526.

Budiono, A., Sugiarto, D. P., & Zuhdi, S. (2023). Legal Protection for Notaries in Making Authentic Deeds in Indonesia. Journal of Judicial Review, 25(1), 111-124. https://doi.org/10.37253/jjr.v25i1.7612.

Cornelius, K. (2021). Betraying blockchain: accountability, transparency and document standards for non-fungible tokens (NFTs). Information, 12(9), 358. https://doi.org/10.3390/info12090358.

d’Aspremont, J., & Tranchez, E. (2013). The quest for a non-conflictual coexistence of international human rights law and humanitarian law: which role for the lex specialis principle? Research Handbook on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781006078.00020.

Devi, N. T., & Gunadi, A. (2024). Legal Protection of the Office of Notary against the Principle of Confidentiality in View of Article 66 Paragraph (4) of the Notary Law. Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, 5(1), 500–508. https://doi.org/10.38035/jlph.v5i1.845.

Dewitz, S. K., Ryu, Y., & Lee, R. M. (1994). Defeasible reasoning in law. Decision Support Systems, 11(2), 133–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(94)90029-9.

Donald Lbn Toruan, H. (2022). The Importance of Using Electronic Deeds to Facilitate The Service and Storage of Notary Archives. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 22(4), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.30641/dejure.2022.v22.483-498.

Erliyani, R., & Ratomi, A. (2018). The Existence of Notary Honor Assemblies in the Criminal Justice Process. Lambung Mangkurat Law Journal, 3(1), 74. https://doi.org/10.32801/lamlaj.v3i1.67.

Essiva, N. M., Harianto, A., & Fahamsyah, E. (2021). Legal Principle of Authentication Power of Authentic Deed Becomes Private Deed Due to Age Limit for Notary Appearers. Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 105, 55. https://doi.org/10.7176/jlpg/105-08.

Faizeh, N., & Latumahina, R. E. (2024). Legal Consequences of Forgery of Authentic Deeds on the Legal Validity of the Deed. Journal Evidence Of Law, 3(3), 273–276. https://doi.org/10.59066/jel.v3i3.770.

Finalo, A. P., & Gettari, T. R. (2024). Legal Protection For Notaries By The Notary Honorary Council as A Witness in The Case Of Identity Forgery By The Parties Making The Deed. Ekasakti Journal of Law and Justice, 2(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.60034/e5zk0q74.

Gusarov, K., Oleksandrivna Shchokina, O., Mykolayivna Cherevatenko, I., Viktorivna Kolisnyk, O., & Leonidivna Kolomiets, Y. (2023). Preventive function of a notary in the legal system of society. Documenta et Instrumenta, 21, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.5209/docu.88106.

Jamus, M., Budi, G. S., Sari, D. R., & Parmitasari, I. (2024). Problems of Implementing Cyber Notary in Notarial Deeds in Indonesia. Sultan Agung Notary Law Review, 6(3), https://doi.org/10.30659/sanlar.v6i3.42422.

Jhaveri, S. (2019). Interrogating dialogic theories of judicial review. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 17(3), 811–835. https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/moz066.

Kridawidyani, W., Ginting, Y. P., & Sugianto, F. (2023). The Legal Advantages of Blockchain Technology For Notary Protocol Archives. Mulawarman Law Review, 8(2), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.30872/mulrev.v8i2.1049.

Meester, R., & Slooten, K. (2021). Probability and Forensic Evidence. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108596176.

Miftahurrahman, Kurniawan, & Djumardin. (2021). Implementation of Notary Protocol Storage (Study in West Lombok Regency). Journal of Law, Policy and Globalization, 112, 59. https://doi.org/10.7176/jlpg/112-08.

Olgiati, V. (1994). The Latin‐type notary and the process of European unification. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 1(3), 253–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.1994.9960381.

Panduwinata, P. A., Purwadi, H., & Novianto, W. T. (2022). Notary Liability in Criminal Acts of Fraud Based on a Power of Buying Deed. Journal of World Science, 1(7), 511–521. https://doi.org/10.58344/jws.v1i7.70.

Passalacqua, V., & Costamagna, F. (2023). The law and facts of the preliminary reference procedure: a critical assessment of the EU Court of Justice’s source of knowledge. European Law Open, 2(2), 322–344. https://doi.org/10.1017/elo.2023.26.

Pratama, E., & Astariyani, N. L. (2025). Peran Notaris Dalam Memperkuat Fungsi Hukum Sebagai Sarana Rekayasa Sosial [The Role of Notaries in Strengthening the Function of Law as a Means of Social Engineering]. Acta Comitas: Jurnal Hukum Kenotariatan, 10(02), 275–289. https://doi.org/10.24843/ac.2025.v10.i02.p4.

Riziq, M. (2024). A Critical Examination of Blasphemy Offenses in the Criminal Code and Law No. 1 of 2023. Indonesian Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (IJCLC), 6(1), 21–28. https://doi.org/10.18196/ijclc.v6i1.24969.

Saepullah, U. (2022). Legal Certainty of Arbitration in The Settlement of Islamic Economic Civil Cases in The Perspective of Positive Law in Indonesia. Al-’Adalah, 19(2), 261–290. https://doi.org/10.24042/adalah.v19i2.14384.

Santoso, K. B. (2023). Notary Legal Protection Related to Notary Summons in the Notary Audit Process Post the Decision of the Constitutional Court Number 16/Pu-Xviii/2020. Proceedings of the International Conference On Law, Economics, and Health (ICLEH 2022), 669–678. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-38476-024-4_67.

Santoso, R. J., & Hamid, A. (2025). Discrepancies Between Legal Norms and Practices in the Protection of Notaries. JIHK, 7(1), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.46924/jihk.v7i1.284.

Subrin, S. N. (1987). How Equity Conquered Common Law: The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in Historical Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 135(4), 909. https://doi.org/10.2307/3312053.

Suseno, S., Ramli, A. M., Mayana, R. F., Safiranita, T., & Aurellia Nathania Tiarma, B. (2025). Cybercrime in the new criminal code in Indonesia. Cogent Social Sciences, 11(1), 2439543. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2439543.

Taekema, S. (2018). Theoretical and Normative Frameworks for Legal Research: Putting Theory into Practice. Law and Method, https://doi.org/10.5553/rem/.000031.

Uyuni, N. L., & Mispansyah. (2025). Legal protection for notaries involved in criminal cases in the drafting of authentic deeds. JILPR Journal Indonesia Law and Policy Review, 7(1), 176–184. https://doi.org/10.56371/jirpl.v7i1.464.

Widya Chandra, I. G., & Novy Purwanto, I. W. (2024). The Role And Responsibilities of A Notary In Public Services Based on Professional Ethic Morals and Law. Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, 4(6), 1937–1945. https://doi.org/10.38035/jlph.v4i6.601.

Wulandari, J., Djaja, B., & Sudirman, M. (2025). Legal Protection for the Notarial Office when Designated as a Suspect In a Criminal Case. Ranah Research : Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Development, 7(5), 3854–3861. https://doi.org/10.38035/rrj.v7i5.1733 .