In general, humans are recognized as social beings, where in every life they lead, they

will need the presence of others to interact, starting from the moment they are born into the

world until ultimately returning to the divine. During their life journey, humans are also

inseparable from the existence of law. "Ubi societas ibi ius," as stated by the famous

philosopher from Rome, Cicero. Ubi Societas Ibi Ius translates to "Where there is society, there

is law" in Indonesian. Law exists to regulate human behavior (Mertokusumo, 2008).

The relationships between individuals are also governed by the law, such as in

agreements like marriage contracts, employment contracts, lease agreements, and other

contracts formed based on the law (Mertokusumo, 2008). Article 1313 of the Civil Procedure

Code (hereafter referred to as KUHPER) explains that "An agreement is an act by which one

produce evidence to demonstrate the validity of the agreement by using a deed (Anand, 2018).

Another difference lies in the legal strength concerning proof in a court of law. An

authentic deed carries strong legal evidence, while a private deed lacks perfect evidentiary

power, making it easier to challenge by one of the parties (Anshori, 2009). Hence, it's necessary

to involve a public officer or an authorized institution to create an authentic deed, and this is

where the notarial institution comes into play.

The notarial institution, represented by a "Notary," emerged from the need in human

interactions, desiring legal proof in their civil law relations. A Notary is a public officer

authorized to create authentic deeds or transcripts and other powers (Article 1 paragraph (1) of

Law Number 2 of 2014 concerning Notary Positions, hereafter referred to as UUJN). The

Notary's role is significant in ensuring legal certainty and protection for the parties involved in

protection for the parties. As an instrument whose form and content are determined by the law,

a Notary must draft deeds in compliance with the requirements stipulated by the law (Adjie,

2011).

Considering a Notary is entrusted with the power and mandate to declare the existence

of a legal relationship between the parties or to record a legal event in a deed, they bear

significant responsibility for the deeds they issue. In their work, Notaries are expected to adhere

to the Professional Code of Ethics, ensuring correctness, diligence, and avoiding negligence or

deliberate misconduct. Thus, the authentic deed can provide legal protection and certainty to

the parties involved (Gunadi & Efendi, 2016).

The Law concerning Notarial Positions regulates the acts of a Notary. If a Notary violates

by laws and regulations illustrate that a Notary is not immune to the law (Darus, 2017).

Criminal punishment is often a subject of public debate in the context of criminal law.

The severity of punishments can vary significantly compared to the committed offenses

(Kanter, 2001). Judges, based on inquisitorial law, decide and impose sentences considering

legal aspects and social considerations. In relation to the previously discussed aspects, the

author is interested in examining a case involving a Notary who breached professional ethics

by fabricating a deed regarding the transfer of land rights due to a dispute with their neighbor,

Mardiana Oemar (Sulihandari & Rifiani, 2013).

his office to create a document for the transfer of land rights. Furthermore, the defendant also

asked another fellow Notary, purportedly Henny, S.H., M.Kn., to sign the forged document

and registered it as an official transaction. This transaction, seemingly between the parents of

the victim and the defendant's father, was valued at Rp. 20,000,000.00 (Twenty million Rupiah)

and was signed by Henny, S.H., M.Kn. As a result, Mardiana Oemar, the victim, experienced

a loss of Rp. 700,000,000.00 (Seven hundred million Rupiah) due to the defendant's land

encroachment.

Consequently, the defendant was sentenced by the Palembang District Court to one year

of imprisonment. However, the defendant Hendri didn’t have to serve the prison term unless

within one year and six months, they received a legally binding sentence. At the Palembang

domiciled in Palembang, became involved in a dispute over a 600-square-meter land with the

victim, Mardiana Oemar. In light of the aforementioned discussions, the author aims to address

a thesis proposal titled: "Analysis of The Application of Sanctions on a Notary Falsifying a

Land Rights Transfer Deed (Study On Supreme Court Decision Number 139 K/Pid/2016)."

Based on the background discussion above, the Problem Identification in this study is 1.

How is the application of legal sanctions against a notary who forges a deed of passing land

rights in Supreme Court Decision Number 139 k / PID / 2016? 2. What is the responsibility of

Notaries who commit forgery of land rights deed in Supreme Court Decision Number 139 K /

PID / 2016? And the purpose of this study is to explain and know 1. Application of sanctions

in the case of forgery of land rights deed of operant in Supreme Court Decision Number 139 k

Professional Code of Ethics, as well as the application of appropriate sanctions to the cases

Hendri, S.H., M.Kn.bin M. Usman on Saturday, February 27, 2010 at approximately 10.15

WIB or at least at another time in 2010 at the Notary Office of Henny Meikarinda, SH, M.Kn.

Jalan Kamil No. 1041 RT. 020 RW. 003 Sukabangun Village, Sukarami District, Palembang

or at least in a place that is still included in the jurisdiction of the Palembang District Court,

ordered to insert false information into an authentic deed about a matter whose truth must be

stated by the deed, with the intention of using a deed as if the description were in accordance

with its truth. Which act was committed by the Defendant in the following manner:

Starting from the Defendant who works as a Notary in Palembang City will make a deed

of passing land rights covering an area of approximately 600 m2 claiming that his property

comes from the inheritance of his parents M. Usman A. Gani located on Jalan Pipa Reja, Pipa

Yani and explained that the parties had faced Notary Henny Meikarinda, S.H. M.Kn., The

deed with Deed Header is written from Notary Henny Meikarinda, S.H., M.Kn. after the deed

was completed the Defendant asked witness Deddi Kurniawan Bin Aswan Nyoto to meet

witness Henny Meikarinda, S.H., M.Kn. Binti H. Asli Amardi, S.H. at his office by bringing

the deed of operation of rights that had been made at Jalan Kamil No. 1041 RT. 020 RW. 003

Sukabangun Village, Sukarami District, Palembang and witness Deddi Kurniawan Bin Aswan

Nyoto met directly with witness Henny Meikarinda, S.H., M.Kn. binti H. Asli Amardi, S.H.

by submitting the deed document; - That between the Defendant and witness Henny

Meikarinda, S.H., M.Kn. Binti H. Asli Amardi, S.H. an agreement was reached in which the

Defendant instructed witness Henny Meikarinda, S.H., M.Kn. Binti H. Asli Amardi, S.H. to

S.H., M.Kn. including:

1. Witness Kasiem Bint Ahmad Syarbini as the first party (seller) to M. Usman A. Gani

as the second party (buyer) never came to the office or faced;

2. There has never been a sale and purchase transaction worth IDR 20,000,000.00;

3. The signing of the Minuta was not done in his presence;

4. The witnesses, namely witnesses Deddi Kurniawan Bin Aswan Nyoto and Septiana

Freedom Yani are employees of the Defendant's office who should be witnesses are

employees of Notary Henny Meikarinda, S.H., M.Kn.; However, witness Henny

The Deed of Passing Rights Number 04 dated February 27, 2010 has been used by the

Defendant as proof of ownership or control over the piece of land in question and the Defendant

has registered it at the Office of the National Land Agency (BPN) Palembang city, but the

Defendant's application was rejected because on the piece of land there was a Certificate of

Ownership in the name of Mardiana Oemar Number 895 with Measuring Letter Number 103 /

Pipa Reja / 2013 dated December 13, 2013.

Even though the Defendant works as a Notary and has known that the piece of land has

an owner and has been issued a certificate in the name of Mardiana Oemar from the Office of

the National Land Agency (BPN) Palembang City, the Defendant still controls the land on the

basis of ownership of Deed of Passing Rights Number 04 dated February 27, 2010. The

Code juncto Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1st of the Penal Code and in the indictment of the acts of

Defendants Hendri, S.H., M.Kn. Bin M. Usman as regulated and threatened with crime in

Article 385 Paragraph (1) of the Penal Code.

The Supreme Court read the criminal complaint of the Public Prosecutor to the

Palembang District Attorney on May 25, 2015 as follows:

1. Declaring that the Defendant Hendri, S.H., M.Kn. Bin M. Usman has been validly

proven guilty of committing the crime of "Mail forgery" as stipulated and threatened

with crime in Article 266 paragraph (1) of the Indonesian Civil Code in the First

Indictment;

2. Imposing a prison sentence therefore against the Defendant for 2 (two) years reduced

5. Charge the Defendant to pay the cost of the case in the amount of Rp5,000.00 (five

for 1 (one) year imprisonment;

3. Order that the Defendant be detained;

4. State evidence in the form of: Photocopy of the deed of passing rights of Notary Henny

Meikarinda, S.H., M.Kn. No. 4 dated February 27, 2010 remains attached to the case

file;

5. Charge the Defendant to pay the costs of the case in both levels of court which in the

appeal level is Rp. 5,000.00 (five thousand rupiah).

Recalling the deed regarding cassation application No. 31/Akta.Pid/2015/PN.Plg. made

by the Registrar at the Palembang District Court which explained, that on October 20, 2015

Defendant Hendri, S.H., M.Kn. Bin M. Usman filed a cassation application against the

Registrar on October 27, 2015, thus the cassation application along with its reasons has been

submitted within the grace period and in a statutory manner, Therefore the application for

cassation is formally acceptable.

Considering, that the reasons for the cassation application filed by the Cassation

Applicant/Defendant are essentially as follows:

1. The Palembang High Court, which heard and decided criminal case No.

85/Pid/2015/PT.Plg. has erred in applying the law, at least not applying the law properly

therefore the decision of the Palembang High Court No. 85/Pid/2015/PT.Plg. dated

September 10, 2015 which was requested for cassation must be annulled;

2. The dictum of Palembang High Court decision No. 85/Pid/2015/PT.Plg. dated

Cassation Petitioner commited, if the trial is separate or the file is separate should be mentioned

in the indictment or indictment, it turns out that it is not mentioned by the Public Prosecutor at

all. So actually the Prosecutor's indictment is legally flawed, it should have been rejected;

3. The panel of judges of the Palembang High Court, who heard and tried case No.

85/Pid/2015/PT.Plg. has increased the sentence of the Defendant/Cassation Applicant

from suspended sentence to imprisonment without giving the legal basis, why the

sentence was aggravated. In other words, the panel of judges of the Palembang High

Court who examined and tried case No. 85/Pid/2015/PT.Plg. did not give sufficient

give sufficient consideration, then the decision must be annulled.

The reasons for the appeal of the Cassation Petitioner/Defendant are of the opinion of the

Supreme Court:

The reason for the cassation application from the Cassation Applicant / Defendant cannot

be justified, because the Judex Facti / High Court decision which corrects only the length of

the crime imposed in the Judex Facti / District Court decision is that the Defendant was

sentenced to imprisonment for 1 (one) year, which previously in the Judex Facti / District Court

decision was sentenced to parole in the form of imprisonment for 1 (one) year provided that

the sentence does not need to be served unless it was before the past within 1 (one) year and 6

(six) months the Defendant has been convicted based on the decision of the Judge who has

the grounds for the criminal conviction of the above Defendant in accordance with Article 197

Paragraph (1) letter (f) of Law Number 8 of 1981.

The reason for the application for cassation cannot be justified also because with regard

to the length of the sentence imposed against the Defendant, in addition to having given

sufficient consideration to the basis of the reasons for the conviction in the Judex Facti / High

Court decision, it is also the authority of Judex Facti whose examination is not subject to the

level of cassation.

Based on the above considerations, it is also evident that the Judex Facti decision in this

case is not contrary to the law and/or the law, then the cassation application from the Cassation

Applicant/Defendant must be rejected. Since the appeal of the Cassation Applicant/Defendant

act of violation or action that violates the Notary code of ethics is subject to administrative

In certain cases, the Notary's refusal to make an authentic deed without a reason justified

by law may harm society. People who need an authentic deed can feel hampered because they

have to find another Notary who is willing to make a deed, which in turn can have an impact

on time, energy, and costs. The presence of the Regional Supervisory Panel is important in

handling reports or allegations of Notary violations.

A special case related to forgery of a deed of passing land rights shows the legal

consequences of the actions of Notaries who commit forgery in authentic deeds. Law

enforcement related to this case reflects legal considerations involving the validity of written

evidence, the credibility of the Notary, and the legal responsibilities attached to the position.

Legal sanctions against a Notary who forges a deed of land rights transfer, as stipulated

responsibility to act trustfully, honestly, and protect the interests of parties involved in legal

transactions. Violations of the code of ethics or Notary regulations are subject to administrative

sanctions regulated by UUJN.

Administrative sanctions for Notaries who violate the provisions may be in the form of

oral, written warnings, temporary suspension, dismissal with or without honor. However, in

situations where Notaries refuse to make deeds without a clear reason, the sanctions imposed

still need further clarification, because legal regulations have not specifically regulated the type

of Notary's refusal to make deeds and appropriate sanctions.

Notary Public's refusal to make an authentic deed without a reason justified by law can

have an impact on people who need such legal documents. This can make it difficult for them

legal responsibility attached to the office of Notary Public.

The responsibility of a Notary engaged in falsifying a deed of transfer of land rights, as

outlined in the Supreme Court Verdict Number 139 K/Pid/2016, is a legal issue emphasizing

the notary's liability in the criminal legal process and the significance of authentic deeds in

legal transactions. The Notary is accountable for the deed they have created in the event of

(UUJN), investigators and prosecutors must seek permission from the Notary's Honorary

Council before summoning a notary in an investigation process involving issues concerning

deeds they created. This is intended to offer legal protection to the notary as a public official,

especially if there's no initial evidence suggesting the notary's involvement in any criminal

deed related to the deed they produced.

A notary is criminally responsible if, during the proof process, it is proven they

committed an error or a criminal act. In criminal law, "error" consists of several elements,

including the capacity to be responsible, intent or negligence, and the absence of excuses. Error

can also refer to actions contrary to the law due to lack of knowledge, ignorance, or violation

of existing rules. Regarding the act of forgery or false information in a deed involving a notary,

as partij akta, so if false information is provided by the parties, their responsibility lies with

those parties. The notary is only responsible if involved in that fraud or false information.

Legal accountability is governed by several principles in the law, including principles of

responsibility based on error, presumption of always being responsible, presumption of not

always being responsible, absolute responsibility, and responsibility with limitations. This

relates to the principle of legal responsibility for a notary in creating a deed containing false

information, which is the main subject of Supreme Court Verdict Number 139 K/Pid/2016. In

this verdict, the defendant Hendri, S.H., M.Kn, son of M. Usman, is proven to have been

engaged in the forgery of deeds collectively. This confirms that in cases of forged deeds,

criminal sanctions can be applied if a notary is proven to be involved in a criminal act related