Publication Search

Penelitian ini membahas dua permasalahan utama, yaitu pengaturan keabsahan akta otentik apabila salah satu pihak menandatanganinya dalam keadaan tidak bebas dan akibat hukum terhadap akta otentik yang ditandatangani dalam keadaan tidak bebas. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual, dan pendekatan kasus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa keabsahan akta otentik tidak hanya ditentukan oleh pemenuhan syarat formil sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 1868 KUHPerdata dan Pasal 38 Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris, tetapi juga harus memenuhi syarat subjektif sahnya perjanjian yaitu adanya kesepakatan yang lahir dari kehendak bebas sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 1320 KUHPerdata. Apabila akta ditandatangani dalam keadaan tidak bebas karena adanya kekhilafan, paksaan, penipuan, atau penyalahgunaan keadaan, maka akta tersebut mengandung cacat kehendak sehingga berstatus dapat dibatalkan (vernietigbaar). Akibat hukumnya, akta tetap memiliki kekuatan pembuktian selama belum ada putusan pengadilan yang membatalkannya, namun apabila dibatalkan maka akta kehilangan kekuatan otentiknya dan para pihak dikembalikan pada keadaan semula (restitutio in integrum). Penelitian ini juga menemukan kekosongan norma dalam UUJN yang tidak mengatur secara eksplisit larangan pembuatan akta dalam keadaan tidak bebas serta tidak adanya PERMA atau SEMA yang menjadi pedoman bagi hakim dalam memeriksa perkara cacat kehendak. Penelitian ini merekomendasikan agar notaris meningkatkan prinsip kehati-hatian dalam menggali kehendak bebas para penghadap, serta pemerintah segera merevisi UUJN dan Mahkamah Agung menerbitkan pedoman indikator cacat kehendak bagi hakim.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan memahami keabsahan akta yang ditandatangani tidak bersamaan oleh para penghadap dan akibat hukumnya terhadap akta autentik yang dibuat oleh Notaris. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif, dimana bersumber dari peraturan perundang-undangan yang berlaku, keputusan-keputusan pengadilan, teori-teori maupun konsep hukum dan pandangan para sarjana hukum. Hasil studi menunjukkan bahwa: (1) Ketika pihak tertentu mendatangi notaris agar dituangkan kehendak mereka dalam sebuah akta dokumen resmi, lalu Notaris menyusun akta berdasarkan permintaan para pihak tersebut maka telah terbentuk sebuah akta yang berlaku sebagai hukum bagi para pihak yang terlibat. (2) Notaris wajib memastikan waktu dalam pembuatan dan penandatanganan akta tersebut dan bertanggung jawab jika di kemudian hari muncul masalah terkait keabsahan akta tersebut yang mana waktu penandatangannya tidak sesuai. (3) Notaris wajib memberikan kepastian waktu kedatangan dan penandatanganan akta yang disebutkan di bagian awal akta untuk membuktikan bahwa para pihak benar-benar hadir dan menandatangani dokumen pada waktu yang telah disebutkan dengan prosedur pembuatan akta berdasarkan UUJN, sehingga kekuatan pembuktiannya bersifat sempurna. Kelalaian dan kesalahan yang dilakukan oleh Notaris akan mengakibatkan akta terdegradasi menjadi dibawah tangan dan kemudian Notaris tersebut akan dikenai sanksi dan dikenakan tanggung jawab secara perdata di mana pihak yang menderita kerugian dapat menuntut penggantian biaya, kompensasi, dan bunga dari Notaris yang bersangkutan.

Notaris sebagai pejabat umum pemegang kewenangan atributif negara dalam pembuatan akta otentik menghadapi kerentanan hukum serius akibat penggunaan dokumen palsu oleh penghadap beriktikad buruk. Asas kepercayaan (vertrouwen) menempatkan notaris pada posisi paradoks: wajib melayani masyarakat, namun berisiko dikriminalisasi atas kejahatan pihak yang dilayaninya. Penelitian ini mengkaji tiga permasalahan: pengaturan hukum tanggung jawab notaris atas akta berbasis dokumen palsu, ketidakmemadaian regulasi dalam melindungi notaris, serta model perlindungan hukum ideal bagi notaris menghadapi pemalsuan dokumen penghadap. Penelitian menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan, konseptual, dan kasus, berbasis data sekunder yang dianalisis melalui content analysis dan divalidasi melalui triangulasi sumber. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan: Pertama, UUJN dan KUHPerdata membatasi tanggung jawab notaris pada kebenaran formal dan prosedural pembuatan akta, sedangkan kebenaran materiil dokumen merupakan tanggung jawab mutlak penghadap. Kedua, regulasi berlaku belum memadai karena UUJN tidak memuat klausul good faith immunity, mekanisme shifting of liability belum diatur secara rigid, kewenangan Majelis Kehormatan Notaris terbatas pada fungsi administratif tanpa daya ikat terhadap proses penyidikan, serta ketiadaan sistem verifikasi identitas digital terintegrasi. Ketiga, model perlindungan ideal adalah model tiga lapis: lapis preventif melalui verifikasi identitas digital real-time terintegrasi dengan Dukcapil dan BPN; lapis normatif melalui amandemen UUJN yang memuat klausul imunitas iktikad baik dan pengalihan tanggung jawab material kepada penghadap manipulatif; serta lapis represif melalui penetapan izin MKN sebagai syarat mutlak penetapan tersangka dan jaminan rehabilitasi bagi notaris yang dikriminalisasi secara tidak sah.

Penelitian ini menganalisis dasar hukum dan tanggung jawab notaris dalam tindak pidana pemalsuan akta otentik berdasarkan Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) dan Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris (UUJN). Notaris memiliki kewenangan membuat akta otentik yang berkekuatan hukum sempurna, namun hal ini juga menciptakan celah bagi pemalsuan yang merugikan. Pemalsuan akta termasuk tindak pidana pemalsuan surat, menimbulkan kompleksitas dalam menentukan batas tanggung jawab notaris karena kewajiban verifikasi notaris yang terbatas dalam investigasi materiil, serta adanya perbedaan pendekatan antara KUHP dan UUJN. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode hukum normatif dengan pendekatan statute dan conceptual, mengkaji peraturan dan literatur hukum. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa notaris dapat dikenakan sanksi pidana jika terbukti sengaja terlibat dalam pemalsuan. Kesimpulannya, diperlukan harmonisasi antara KUHP dan UUJN untuk memastikan kepastian hukum bagi notaris dan masyarakat, dengan penekanan pada pembuktian unsur kesengajaan (dolus) notaris.

The issue arises from Article 15 paragraph (2) letter f of the Notary Position Law (UUJN), which grants notaries the authority to draw up deeds related to land affairs but fails to clearly define the scope of that authority. This creates conflict with Article 2 of Government Regulation No. 37 of 1998 in conjunction with Government Regulation No. 24 of 2016, which stipulates that PPATs have the authority to draw up authentic deeds regarding certain legal acts in land affairs. This study employs a normative juridical method by reviewing statutory regulations and legal literature to analyze the issue. The results show that this overlapping authority leads to legal uncertainty and potential conflict between professional functions. In practice, although notaries are normatively granted authority in land-related matters, their implementation remains limited, as deeds drawn up by notaries cannot serve as a legal basis for land registration unless the notary is also appointed as a PPAT. Therefore, a legal reform is necessary, either through a revision of the UUJN or the establishment of implementing regulations that clarify each official’s authority. By doing so, legal certainty can be achieved, and inter-professional disputes can be minimized.

This study aims to analyze the application of the legal principle of utility (kemanfaatan hukum) in relation to the inclusion of the phrase Basmallah at the beginning of authentic deeds in Murabahah financing contracts. In notarial practice, it has been found that certain notaries include the phrase “Bismillahirrahmanirrahim” at the beginning of the redaction of Islamic financing deeds. However, the form and structure of authentic deeds are explicitly regulated in Article 38 of the Notary Act (UUJN), which serves as the normative reference for notaries in drafting legally binding deeds. According to Article 1868 of the Indonesian Civil Code (KUHPerdata), an authentic deed is a document drafted in a format prescribed by law, created by or before a public official authorized for such matters, and executed at a place designated by law. Therefore, the inclusion of the Basmallah, which is not stipulated in the formal structure of deeds, may pose legal issues as it can be deemed a deviation from formal requirements, potentially undermining the evidentiary strength of the deed. To ensure both the utility and legal certainty of authentic deeds, it is necessary to reaffirm the formal boundaries as outlined in Article 1869 of the Civil Code, so that deeds drawn up by notaries maintain both formal and substantive legal validity. The scope of this study encompasses three main aspects: First, whether the inclusion of the Basmallah at the beginning of a Murabahah financing deed holds legal authenticity; second, to what extent such inclusion aligns with the principle of legal utility.

The provision under Article 17 paragraph (1) letter f of the Notary Law (UUJN) stipulates that a Notary is prohibited from concurrently holding a position as a leader or manager in a state-owned or private business entity. However, the term "leader" as used in this provision is not clearly defined, either in the main text of the article or in its explanatory section. The absence of a clear definition creates legal ambiguity, as the provision does not refer to organizational structures regulated under the Company Law, the State-Owned Enterprises Law, or the Regional Government Law. This has led to varying interpretations in the supervision of Notaries and creates potential inconsistencies in the enforcement of the rule. To address this normative uncertainty, there is a need for regulation that explicitly outlines which positions are considered to fall under the term "leader" as intended by the UUJN. This journal article focuses on analyzing the meaning of the term "leader" in Article 17 paragraph (1) letter f of the UUJN, and on examining the legal certainty of using the term in relation to the prohibition against Notaries concurrently holding leadership positions in business entities.

Notaris atau PPAT dalam jabatannya tidak terlepas dari sebuah kesalahan dan pelanggaran. Salah satu yaitu kasus dalam Putusan Nomor 1379K/Pid/2023 diketahui dalam kasus bahwa MVS selaku Notaris atau PPAT dititipi uang pembayaran uang tanah oleh SRW selaku pembeli. Uang tersebut tidak diberikan kepada pihak yang berhak yaitu 19 ahli waris selaku penjual maupun BA selaku kuasa jual, Namun diberikan kepada EW. Pokok permasalahan dalam penelitian ini yaitu :1). Bagaimana proses pelaksanaan jual beli tanah dalam Putusan Nomor 1379K/Pid/2023. 2). Bagaimana tanggung jawab Notaris atau PPAT terhadap jual beli tanah dalam Putusan Nomor 1379K/Pid/2023 3).Bagaimana akibat hukum terhadap Notaris atau PPAT yang turut serta dalam proses jual beli tanah dalam Putusan Nomor 1379K/Pid/2023. Metodologi penelitian yang digunakan adalah yuridis normatif, sumber data yaitu data sekunder, metode pengumpulan data dengan studi kepustakaan, metode analisis data menggunakan analisis data kualitatif. Hasil dari penelitian ini bahwa, 1).  Proses jual beli tanah ada tiga tahapan yang harus dilalui yaitu tahapan pengecekan data, tahapan persiapan dan perpajakan, terakhir tahapan jual beli dan balik nama. 2). Sikap Notaris atau PPAT dalam Putusan Nomor 1379K/Pid/2023 merugikan bagi pihak penjual dan pembeli sehingga Notaris atau PPAT bertanggung jawab secara perdata, pidana, dan Adminitratif. 3). Notaris atau PPAT dengan menerima uang titipian dari SRW dinilai menjadi pihak yang ikut serta Notaris atau PPAT dalam jual beli tanah tersebut dan hal itu telah melanggar Pasal 52 UUJN, maka akibat dari keikutsertaan menerima sanksi pidana yaitu penjara selama tujuh bulan.

The making of authentic deeds by a notary is part of the legal service that has the highest evidentiary value in the Indonesian civil law system. One of the formal requirements of an authentic deed according to Law Number 2 of 2014 concerning Amendments to Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning the Position of Notary (UUJN) is the presence of two witnesses who know and directly witness the process of signing the deed. In notarial practice, notary staff are often appointed as witnesses for reasons of administrative convenience, trust, and availability of time. This study aims to examine the legal position and role of notary staff as witnesses in authentic deeds and the form of legal protection available if the deed is legally disputed. The research method used is normative legal with a statutory and conceptual approach, supported by literature studies and analysis of related court decisions. The results of the study indicate that notary staff are legally valid as witnesses as long as they meet the requirements as competent witnesses according to law. However, if a dispute arises over the deed, the staff can be asked for information as a witness in court and has the potential to face legal pressure. Therefore, legal protection for notary staff includes the principle of good faith, legal protection for witnesses, the right to legal assistance, and the ethical responsibility of notaries as employers. In conclusion, there needs to be more explicit regulations regarding the role of staff in deeds and clear protection mechanisms to maintain professionalism, integrity, and legal certainty in notarial practice.

This thesis examines the legal consequences faced by notaries who refuse to draft credit agreement deeds containing elements of usury, with a focus on Tuban City. The study addresses two main issues: whether a notary can lawfully refuse such a deed, and what legal sanctions may apply if they do. Using a normative legal research approach with case, statutory, and conceptual analyses, the study finds that while the UUJN (Notary Law) does not explicitly permit refusal on religious grounds, it also does not prohibit it if the client can be served by another notary. Refusal based on Islamic principles—specifically the prohibition of usury (riba)—does not warrant sanctions under Article 85 of the UUJN, unless the refusal leads to the client's abandonment. In such cases, administrative sanctions may apply. According to the Notary Code of Ethics, acting outside legal provisions may also result in disciplinary action. The study concludes that current laws do not provide sufficient legal protection for notaries who seek to align their professional duties with religious beliefs. It recommends legal reform to ensure notaries have the right to uphold sharia principles without fear of sanctions, through amendments to the UUJN that consider religious freedom and human rights, while still ensuring client access to legal services.

This research examines the role of Indonesian Notary Position Regulations (UUJN) in enhancing integrity and professionalism within the notarial profession in Indonesia. The study adopts a normative legal research methodology, integrating both statutory and conceptual approaches to evaluate the effectiveness of existing regulatory frameworks governing notarial practice. Primary objectives include analyzing the impact of current regulations on notarial standards, identifying implementation challenges, and developing recommendations for regulatory enhancement. The research findings demonstrate that while the UUJN serves as a crucial foundation for professional notarial practice, several significant challenges persist in its implementation. These challenges encompass technological adaptation requirements, increasing transaction complexity, and the need for stronger oversight mechanisms. Analysis reveals opportunities for regulatory refinement to address emerging professional demands while maintaining high standards of integrity. This study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by providing comprehensive insights into the relationship between regulatory frameworks and professional excellence in notarial practice. The findings lead to specific recommendations for regulatory enhancement, including strengthening supervisory mechanisms, developing continuous professional development programs, and harmonizing standards with international best practices. These recommendations aim to foster a more robust and adaptable notarial profession in Indonesia while maintaining its fundamental role in ensuring legal certainty and protection for society.

Proses transaksi jual beli tanah sering dilakukan dengan cara mengangsur, maka dibuatlah suatu terobosan dengan dibuatnya akta perjanjian pengikatan jual beli (PPJB) sebagai perjanjian pendahuluan. Namun dalam pelaksanaannya sering terjadi Wanprestasi yang dilakukan oleh pembeli. Permasalahan dalam penelitian ini dirumuskan dalam bentuk pertanyaan penelitian yaitu: 1. Bagaimana kepastian hukum dari Akta Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli (PPJB) yang dibuat dihadapan Notaris?. 2. Bagaimana pertimbangan hukum majelis hakim dalam memutuskan perkara wanprestasi pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor: 1650 K/Pdt/2015? 3. Bagaimana perlindungan hukum bagi penjual dalam perkara wanprestasi pada Putusan Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor: 1650 K/Pdt/2015?. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum normatif atau disebut juga penelitian hukum kepustakaan (library research). Hasil penelitian: 1. Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli yang dibuat dihadapan Notaris merupakan akta otentik sehingga memiliki kekuatan pembuktian yang sempurna dan tidak perlu dipermasalahkan lagi sehingga terjamin kepastian hukumnya, hal ini sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 15 ayat (1) UUJN dan Pasal 38 UUJN. 2. Berdasarkan pertimbangan hukum majelis hakim Mahkamah Agung RI Nomor: 1650 K/Pdt/2015, dalam pertimbangan hukumnya menyebutkan bahwa perkara sengketa Akta Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli yang mengandung unsur wanprestasi yang dilakukan oleh pihak pembeli (HENDRA PANGESTU). 3. Perlindungan hukum bagi penjual setelah pembeli dinyatakan wanprestasi pada akta pengikatan jual beli yaitu mengacu pada putusan Mahkamah Agung RIyaitu dibatalkannya Akta Perjanjian Pengikatan Jual Beli tersebut, maka Penggugat secara hukum memiliki hak atas objek sengketa tersebut dan uang pembayaran tahap I (pertama) dan tahap II (kedua) menjadi milik pihak penjual selaku Penggugat dan tidak dapat diminta kembali.

Tugas pelaksanaan jabatan notaris ialah membuat akta yang dipergunakan sebagai alat bukti yang dibutuhkan oleh para pihak untuk suatu tindakan hukum tertentu. Bahkan, seorang Notaris turut menjadi tergugat atau turut tergugat dalam proses peradilan perdata. Rumusan masalah 1. Bagaimana akibat hukum terhadap Akta Kuasa Menjual apabila tidak sesuai dengan Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris? 2. Bagaimana pertanggungjawaban Notaris terhadap kasus pemalsuan akta kuasa menjual pada Putusan No.773/Pid.B/2021/PNSmg? 3. Apa yang menyebabkan Notaris dapat melakukan tindakan penyimpangan dalam pembuatan Akta Kuasa Menjual? Penelitian ini memiliki tujuan untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis akibat hukum terhadap Akta Kuasa Menjual apabila tidak sesuai dengan UUJN, untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis penyebab Notaris dapat melakukan tindakan penyimpangan dalam pembuatan Akta Kuasa Menjual, untuk mengetahui dan menganalisis pertanggungjawaban Notaris terhadap kasus pemalsuan Akta Kuasa Menjual pada Putusan No.773/Pid.B/2021/PNSmg. Untuk metode penelitian ini adalah yuridis normatif yang berfokus pada ketentuan perundang-undangan yang berlaku. Hasil dari penelitian ini, pertanggungjawaban Notaris terhadap akta kuasa menjual yang dipalsukan adalah Notaris M pidana penjara selama 1 (satu) tahun 6 (enam) bulan dan F dengan pidana penjara selama 1 ( satu) tahun 4 (empat) bulan. Karena terdapat pelanggaran Kode Etik yang dilakukan oleh Notaris M karena tidak membacakan akta kuasa menjual tersebut kepada S dan tanda tangan juga tidak dilakukan dihadapan Notaris M, adanya unsur kesengajaan yang dilakukan oleh F karena melakukan pemalsuan tanda tangan S pada akta kuasa menjual, terdapat unsur kelalaian juga dari Notaris M karena tidak cross check kepada pihak S benar tidak staffnya meminta tanda tangan ke S.

The explanation of Article 15 paragraph (3) provides a direction regarding the other forms of authority in question, one of the activities of which is certifying transactions with the concept of authentic creation through an electronic system. In contrast to the implementation of authentic making through an electronic system in Article 16 paragraph (1) letter m UUJN, which in essence the Notary must be physically present in front of several parties who have been determined to read and sign the deed, with formal requirements that must be met for the validity of a deed. An authentic deed is a derivative of Article 1868 of the Civil Code which is an explanation of the meaning of an Authentic Deed. So that between Article 15 paragraph (3) UUJN and Article 16 paragraph (1) letter m, there is a conflict of norms, therefore it is necessary to study further regarding the validity of an Authentic Deed based on the validity of making an authentic deed made in the concept of authentic making through an electronic system without any the physical presence of the Notary and the presenters. The focus of this jurnal research is the Notary's responsibility for making authentic deeds through an electronic system in terms of the validity of making authentic deeds, and the form of Notary's responsibility for making authentic deeds through electronic systems based on the validity of making authentic deeds.

Notaries can join together and run a civil partnership together with other fellow Notaries. However, it is explained in the UUJN, the notary civil partnership is not completely the same as the civil partnership contained in the Civil Code. The purpose of this study is to analyze the responsibility of Notaries in carrying out Notary civil partnerships and the impacts caused by the existence of Notary civil partnerships. This research is processed with a normative juridical approach method, namely by looking at law as a set of regulations/rules or doctrines that have a normative nature (law in book). As a result of the problem, each Notary remains individually responsible for what is done and the legal products made as well as the confidentiality of the contents of the deed become the individual responsibility of the Notary and there are positive and negative impacts of the existence of a Notary civil partnership becoming a common concern for Notaries to become members of the Notary civil partnership.

In various business relationships, activities in banking, land, social activities, etc., the need for written evidence in the form of authentic deeds is increasing in line with the growing demand for legal certainty in various economic and social relationships, both at the national, regional and regional levels. and globally. Through an authentic deed that clearly determines rights and obligations, guarantees legal certainty, and at the same time it is hoped that disputes can be avoided. Even though these disputes cannot be avoided, in the process of resolving disputes, authentic deeds which are the strongest and most complete written evidence make a real contribution to resolving cases cheaply and quickly. The objectives to be achieved in the research are:To find out the qualifications of unlawful acts for the actions of a Notary who has handed over a land certificate for the object of sale and purchase without the agreement of the parties. And to find out that the Notary who submitted the Deed of Sale and Purchase without an agreement violated the notary's oath of office.Notaries have an obligation to act in a trustworthy, honest, thorough, independent, impartial manner and safeguard the interests of parties involved in carrying out legal actions. In accordance with the provisions of Article 85 UUJN, the sanctions that can be imposed on a Notary are verbal warning, written warning, temporary dismissal, honorable dismissal, or dishonorable dismissal. Committing other acts which are generally referred to as violations of the Notary's Code of Ethics

This research examines the liability of notaries for authentic deeds under the UUJN. While the UUJN does not specifically regulate criminal sanctions for notaries, the Criminal Code can be applied. Violations by notaries can lead to lawsuits against the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. The UUJN regulates the guidance and supervision of notaries by the Notary Supervisory Council and MKN. The primary focus of this research is the final decision of the Regional Notary Supervisory Council regarding administrative sanctions as outlined in Article 73 of the UUJN. The research methodology employed is a normative juridical legal research approach. The legal materials utilized in this research include primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. The results of the research indicate that the legal protection efforts of the community, particularly those who feel harmed by notaries in the context of notarial acts that indicate criminal acts, are carried out through a form of reactive protection, namely the filing of complaints with the Notary Supervisory Panel. The evidence presented to the Regional Notary Supervisory Panel, the district courts in civil cases for compensation and law enforcement officials (Police) in criminal cases, demonstrates the existence of evidence that can be used to support claims of criminal acts by Notaries. However, the Decision of the Regional Notary Supervisory Panel only imposes Administrative Decisions on Notaries who indicate criminal acts with verbal or written warnings.

Notaries should be responsible for drafting and issuing credit agreements between banks and debtors in order to provide legal certainty for all parties involved. In an effort to achieve legal certainty, especially in banking credit agreements with standard clauses, Notaries must ensure that their duties are carried out in accordance with applicable principles and provisions. This research aims to analyze unbalanced standard clauses in credit agreements made by Notaries and to examine the liability of Notaries for credit agreements that utilize standard clauses. The approach method used is the doctrinal legal research method, using literature examination or secondary data to examine relevant regulations and literature. The preparation of this research uses an analytical descriptive approach which aims to explain the data or describe the object of the problem being studied. The results of the research show that the responsibility of the Notary for credit agreements that apply standard clauses is that if the agreement made by the Notary has elements of unlawful acts, the Notary has an obligation to be responsible in accordance with civil provisions by providing compensation to parties who lose as a result of the agreement in accordance with the provisions stipulated in Article 84 of Law Number 2 of 2014 concerning Notary Offices.

This research is about the Authority of Notaries to Make Covernotes. Regarding making covernotes by Notaries, until now there is no legal umbrella, but in practice Notaries make covernotes in the credit agreement process. This type of research is empirical juridical research and uses a statutory legal approach. The research data used is secondary data and primary data. Secondary data is data obtained from interviews with Notaries in the City of Yogyakarta and the Chair of the Regional Supervisory Council of the Special Region of Yogyakarta Province. Secondary data comes from legislation and other legal materials. Research data was analyzed using a quantitative approach. The results of this research explain: Covernotes are made based on custom and based on material law, namely the law of engagement. If there is a formal legal source in the form of custom, it is acceptable, does not conflict with the law and is carried out repeatedly, which causes the action to be considered the truth and does not conflict with applicable law. .Even though the position of the covernote is still considered not to meet legal certainty. Covernotes have also been explicitly discussed by the Management of the Indonesian Notary Association that the UUJN does not regulate the making of covernotes by Notaries regarding activities or implementation of Notarization.

Several countries have implemented electronic notarial deeds in their national legal systems, mainly to ensure the authenticity of electronic information. The authentic deed rules in the UUJN and Civil Code show that the use of notarial deeds and the creation of authentic deeds are difficult to implement due to the absence of procedural changes. The definition of an authentic deed is included in both UUJN and UU ITE. The research findings show that the creation of electronic deeds using artificial intelligence (AI) has become a legal basis. For example, Article 15(3) of the UUJN and Article 17 of the UUPT cover electronic registration of trust deeds, electronic registration with notaries, amendments to the articles of association of legal entities, and so on. Obstacles in the implementation of electronic deeds are influenced by many factors, such as legal substance, legal structure, and legal culture.