Electronic Theses and Dissertation

Kedudukan putusan majelis pengawas notaris yang digugat di pengadilan tata usaha negara indrayati febisyah ananda * iman jauhari ** siti rahmah *** abstrak pasal 28 ayat (1) peraturan menteri hukum dan hak asasi manusia nomor 15 tahun 2020 tentang tata cara pemeriksaan majelis pengawas terhadap notaris menentukan bahwa pelapor dan/atau terlapor yang keberatan atas putusan majelis pengawas wilayah berhak mengajukan banding kepada majelis pengawas pusat yang disampaikan melalui sekretariat majelis pengawas wilayah. namun, dalam praktik ditemukan adanya salah satu contoh putusan tata usaha negara nomor 190/g/2020/ptun.jkt, yang notaris menggugat putusan majelis pengawas wilayah notaris provinsi dki jakarta nomor: 05/pts/mj.pwn.prov.dkijakarta/ix/2020, tertanggal 14 september 2020 perihal memberikan sanksi teguran tertulis kepada terlapor. penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan kedudukan hukum putusan majelis pengawas wilayah dalam perspektif undang-undang peradilan tata usaha negara, menjelaskan pertimbangan hukum ptun jakarta dalam putusan nomor 190/g/2020/ptun.jkt terhadap gugatan notaris atas keputusan yang didasarkan pada rekomendasi majelis pengawas, menjelaskan perlindungan hukum bagi notaris yang dirugikan atas putusan majelis pengawas wilayah. adapun jenis penelitian yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini yaitu penelitian yuridis normatif. penelitian ini mengunakan pendekatan perundangundangan dan pendekatan konseptual. penelitian ini juga menggunakan data primer sebagai data pelengkap melalui wawancara narasumber. hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kedudukan putusan majelis pengawas wilayah notaris telah memenuhi unsur pasal 1 angka 9 uuptun karena telah memenuhi unsur konkrit, individual, dan final. majelis hakim menilai bahwa putusan majelis pengawas wilayah notaris berdasarkan rekomendasi majelis pengawas daerah notaris yang menjadi objek sengketa telah memenuhi seluruh unsur ktun. pertimbangan hakim ptun jakarta dalam putusan nomor 190/g/2020/ptun.jkt menegaskan bahwa putusan mpw dapat dikualifikasikan sebagai ktun karena memenuhi unsur penetapan tertulis, konkret, individual, dan menimbulkan akibat hukum. selain itu, hakim menilai adanya cacat prosedural dan pelanggaran asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik, sehingga putusan mpw tersebut dinyatakan dicabut. perlindungan hukum bagi notaris dapat dibagi menjadi dua yakni upaya preventif yang dilakukan untuk mencegah kerugian, diantaranya yaitu membela diri sebagaimana diatur dalam pasal 74 ayat (2) uujn. upaya kedua yaitu upaya represif dilakukan setelah terjadinya pelanggaran. putusan ptun tersebut memberikan implikasi penting terhadap perlindungan hukum bagi notaris, yaitu memperkuat hak notaris untuk menggugat keputusan administratif yang merugikan serta menegaskan bahwa tindakan majelis pengawas tidak kebal dari pengujian hukum, sehingga mendorong terciptanya kepastian hukum, keadilan, dan akuntabilitas dalam pengawasan notaris. disarankan perlu adanya penegasan norma dalam peraturan perundangundangan mengenai kedudukan hukum putusan majelis pengawas notaris, khususnya terkait apakah termasuk ktun atau tidak, guna menghindari multitafsir dan memberikan kepastian hukum. majelis pengawas notaris diharapkan dalam menjalankan kewenangannya lebih memperhatikan prosedur, dasar hukum, dan asas-asas umum pemerintahan yang baik agar setiap putusan yang dihasilkan tidak menimbulkan sengketa hukum. notaris perlu meningkatkan pemahaman terhadap upaya hukum yang tersedia, baik administratif maupun melalui ptun, serta menjalankan jabatan secara profesional dan hati-hati guna meminimalisir potensi pelanggaran dan sengketa. kata kunci: kedudukan, majelis pengawas wilayah, notaris

THE LEGAL STANDING OF NOTARY SUPERVISORY BOARD DECISIONS CHALLENGED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Indrayati Febisyah Ananda* Iman Jauhari † ** Siti Rahmah*** ABSTRACT Article 28 Paragraph (1) of the Regulation of the Minister of Law and Human Rights Number 15 of 2020 concerning the Procedures for Examination by the Supervisory Board against Notaries stipulates that a Reporter and/or Reported Party who objects to a decision of the Regional Supervisory Board (MPW) has the right to file an appeal to the Central Supervisory Board (MPP) through the secretariat of the Regional Supervisory Board. However, in practice, Administrative Court Decision NUMBER 190/G/2020/PTUN.JKT shows a case where a Notary sued the Regional Notary Supervisory Board of DKI Jakarta Province Decision Number: 05/PTS/Mj.PWN.Prov.DKIJakarta/IX/2020, dated September 14, 2020, regarding the Imposition of a Written Warning Sanction on the Reported Party. This research aims to explain the legal standing of the Regional Supervisory Board's decision from the perspective of the Administrative Court Law, to analyze the legal considerations of the Jakarta Administrative Court (PTUN Jakarta) in Decision Number 190/G/2020/PTUN.JKT regarding a notary's lawsuit against a decision based on the Supervisory Board's recommendation, and to explain the legal protection for notaries aggrieved by Regional Supervisory Board decisions. The type of research used in this study is Normative Juridical research. This study utilizes a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. It also employs primary data as supplementary information through interviews with resource persons. The results of the study indicate that the legal standing of the Regional Notary Supervisory Board's decision meets the elements of Article 1 point 9 of the Administrative Court Law (UUPTUN) because it fulfills the criteria of being concrete, individual, and final. The panel of judges assessed that the Regional Notary Supervisory Board's decision, which was based on the Regional Notary Supervisory Board's recommendation and served as the object of the dispute, fulfilled all elements of an Administrative Act (KTUN). The considerations of the Jakarta Administrative Court judges in Decision Number 190/G/2020/PTUN.JKT affirmed that the MPW decision can be qualified as an Administrative Act because it meets the elements of being a written decree, concrete, individual, and resulting in legal consequences. Furthermore, the judges identified procedural defects and violations of the General Principles of Good Corporate Governance (AUPB), leading to the revocation of the MPW decision. Legal protection for Notaries can be divided into two categories: preventive measures taken to prevent losses, including the right to self-defense as regulated in Article 74 Paragraph (2) of the Notary Public Act (UUJN); and repressive measures taken after a violation has occurred. The Administrative Court decision provides significant implications for the legal protection of notaries, namely strengthening the right of notaries to sue detrimental administrative decisions and affirming that the actions of the Supervisory Board are not immune from judicial review, thereby promoting legal certainty, justice, and accountability in notary supervision. It is suggested that there be a normative clarification in the legislation regarding the legal standing of Notary Supervisory Board decisions, specifically whether they are categorized as Administrative Acts (KTUN), to avoid multiple interpretations and ensure legal certainty. The Notary Supervisory Board is expected to pay closer attention to procedures, legal basis, and the general principles of good governance in exercising its authority to ensure that its decisions do not lead to legal disputes. Notaries need to increase their understanding of available legal remedies, both administrative and through the Administrative Court, and carry out their duties professionally and cautiously to minimize potential violations and disputes. Keywords: Legal Standing, Regional Supervisory Board, Notary