Publication Search

This study examines the evolution of the notary supervision system in Indonesia, particularly the impact of Constitutional Court Decision No. 49/PUU-X/2012 which revoked Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law No. 30 of 2004 and the establishment of the Notary Honorary Council (MKN) through Law No. 2 of 2014. The study uses a normative juridical method with a case and statutory approach, supported by literature analysis and expert opinion. The results show that the Constitutional Court decision eliminated legal protection for notaries in facing arbitrary actions by law enforcement officers, creating inequality with other professions such as advocates and doctors. Although the Regional Supervisory Council (MPD) still exists institutionally, the authority to grant approval for summoning notaries has been lost. In response, the government established the MKN which combines elements of the Ministry of Law and Human Rights with the Indonesian Notaries Association. International comparisons show that the civil law system provides stronger protection through specialized courts, while common law does not provide a privileged position for notaries. Indonesia adopts a mixed model that provides flexibility but creates coordination complexity. The MKN plays a role in enforcing professional ethics while maintaining a balance between the protection of notaries as public officials who make authentic deeds and accountability in the judicial system, restoring the stability of legal protection that was lost after the Constitutional Court's decision.

Abstract. The United States has a written constitutional system in the form of a republic with clear boundaries of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. In contrast, the United Kingdom has an unwritten constitution based on various sources, such as statutes, conventions, and court decisions, with a constitutional monarchy and parliament playing key roles. Second, the state upholds civil rights and individual freedoms, and has an impact on the political and legal systems for the implementation of human rights. Through a comparative approach, this article provides further understanding of the differences and similarities between the constitutions and systems of government of the two countries in upholding the principles of democracy and human rights, and the consequences of these differences on national and international politics.