Legal Certainty In The Provision of Free Notarial Services For The Underprivileged

Ishma Safira Syaid; Djumikasih; Trie Sulistiowarni

doi:10.55173/yurisdiksi.v21i3.320

Authors

Ishma Safira Syaid Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University Malang, Indonesia
Djumikasih Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University Malang, Indonesia
Trie Sulistiowarni Faculty of Law, Brawijaya University Malang, Indonesia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.55173/yurisdiksi.v21i3.320

Keywords:

Legal Certainty, Notary, Underprivileged Society

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the legal consequences of incomplete norms governing the obligation to provide free notarial services by notaries to the underprivileged as stipulated in Article 37 of the Notary Law (UUJN). This provision actually reflects the social function of the notary office in ensuring access to justice. However, Article 37 of the UUJN does not yet contain clear parameters regarding the criteria for the underprivileged, the types of notarial services that must be provided, or the financing mechanism. This study uses a normative legal research method with a statutory, comparative, and conceptual approach. The results show that the incomplete norms in Article 37 of the UUJN create legal uncertainty. Based on previous field research, there are differences in the implementation of the obligation to provide free notarial services among notaries for the underprivileged. A comparative study with Law Number 16 of 2011 concerning Legal Aid and Government Regulations related to its implementation shows that the legal aid system has a more comprehensive legal framework, including parameters for beneficiaries, types of services provided, and financing mechanisms from the state. Therefore, it is necessary to establish implementing regulations or technical guidelines that detail the obligation to provide free notarial services, as explained above. This normative reconstruction is crucial to ensuring legal certainty for notaries and the beneficiary community.

References

Anshori, A. G. (2009). Indonesian Notary Institution, Legal and Ethical Perspective. UII Press, Yogyakarta.

Djumardin, D., & Risnain, M. (2023). Pelaksanaan Kewajiban Notaris Memberikan Jasa Hukum Di Bidang Kenotariatan Secara Cuma-Cuma Kepada Orang Yang Tidak Mampu Di Kota Mataram (Studi di Notaris Kota Mataram). Jurnal Risalah Kenotariatan, 4(1).

Harniyanti, R. (2024). The Legal Implications and Risks of Obstruction of Justice in Notarial Practice. Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and Health, 3(12), 2898–2909.

Irsan, M. N. (2021). Kewajiban Notaris Memberikan Jasa Hukum Secara Cuma-Cuma Kepada Orang Tidak Mampu di Kota Pangkalpinang. Palembang: Fakultas Hukum Universitas Sriwijaya.

Lenawati, M. N. (2019). Reconstruction Of Notary Professional Code Of Ethics In Carrying Out Notary Position Based On Justice Values.

Mirzajanovna, K. M. (2024). The importance of notarial activity in protecting the rights of individuals and legal entities. The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology, 6(03), 51–56.

Muhammad, A. (2004). Law and legal research. Bandung: Citra Aditya Bakti, 32.

Puspita, A. D. (2022). Implementasi Pasal 37 Undang–Undang Jabatan Notaris Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 Tentang Kewajiban Notaris Untuk Memberikan Jasa Hukum Secara Cuma–Cuma Di Kota Surakarta.

Risnawati, E., Dewa, M. J., & Tatawu, G. (2021). Analisis Hukum Penyelenggaraan Bantuan Hukum Oleh Pemerintah Daerah. Halu Oleo Legal Research, 3(1), 68–86.

Supriyanta, S. H. (2020). Bantuan Hukum & Alternatif Penyelesaian Sengketa. Unisri Press.