Pertanggungjawaban Hukum Notaris Terhadap Pengingkaran Akta Jual Beli Tanah Bersertipikat Oleh Pihak Yang Dirugikan

Abstract

Pasal 1 Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014 tentang Jabatan Notaris: “Notaris merupakan Pejabat Umum yang berwenang membuat akta otentik.” Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 24 Tahun 2016 Tentang Peraturan Jabatan Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah (PPAT), PPAT berwenang membuat akta otentik hak atas tanah. Kekuatan pembuktian Akta Notaris/PPAT sempurna, namun kenyataannya dapat digugat keotentikannya dan pihak dirugikan dapat mengajukan Notaris/PPAT ke pengadilan. Tujuan penelitian menjelaskan akibat hukum pengingkaran Akta jual beli tanah bersertipikat bagi Notaris/PPAT, konsekuensi yuridis penggunaan hak ingkar Notaris/PPAT, dan upaya hukum pihak dirugikan. Tipologi yuridis normatif. Pendekatan perundang-undangan, analisis, dan kasus hukum. Sumber bahan hukum primer, sekunder, dan tersier. Analisis data kualitatif, diinterpretasikan, kemudian dideskripsikan. Hasil penelitian: pengingkaran pihak dirugikan terhadap akta tersebut tidak langsung berakibat hukum bagi Notaris/PPAT karena keotentikannya tidak serta-merta terdegradasi menjadi akta di bawah tangan, disebabkan materi pengingkaran harus terbukti. Konsekuensi yuridis penggunaan hak ingkar Notaris/PPAT merugikan pihak tertentu namun melindungi notaris secara etika dan administrasi. Upaya hukum pihak dirugikan berupa non-litigasi (di luar pengadilan) dan litigasi (melalui pengadilan). Saran: terdapat aturan dan sanksi bagi notaris terbukti mengeluarkan akta merugikan pihak tertentu, Kementerian Hukum dan HAM memaksimalkan kinerja pengawas notaris/PPAT, dan Mahkamah Agung mengatur pemeriksaan minuta akta dan catatan keadaan khusus pada akhir akta oleh hakim.

Article 1 Law Number 2 of 2014 concerning Notarial Position:“Notary is Public Official who authorized to make authentic deeds.”Government Regulation Number 24 of 2016 concerning Regulation of Land-Title-Registrar (PPAT) Position, PPAT has authority to make authentic deeds of right-to-land.Notarial/PPAT’s deed has perfect evidentiary power,but in reality its authenticity could be sued and injured party could submit Notary/PPAT to court.Study aims to explain judicial consequences of Notary/PPAT for denying sale-and-purchase-deed of certified land,juridical consequences for using Notary/PPAT refusal-rights,and legal remedies by injured party.The typology is normative-juridical.Laws,analytical,and legal case approach.The sources of legal materials were primary,secondary,and tertiary.Data was analyzed qualitatively, interpreted, then described. Study results: denial of the injured party to the deed does not have direct judicial consequences for the Notary/PPAT because its authenticity,and not directly degraded into deed-signed-under-hand,due to denial material should be proven. The juridical consequences of using Notary/PPAT refusal-rights were harm certain parties but could protect the notary ethically and administratively. Legal remedies by the injured party were non-litigation (out-of-court settlement) and litigation (through Court). Recommendations: should be rules and sanctions for notary who has proven issued deed that harm certain parties, Ministry of Law and Human Rights should maximize the Notary/PPAT supervisors performance,Supreme Court should regulate minutes of deed examination and special circumstances record at the end of deed by judge.