Ministry of Law and Human Rights Supervision Functions on Notary Organizations

Abstract

The aim of this research is to analyze the urgency of regulating the supervision of notary organizations by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights and to analyze what factors influence the legal vacuum in the supervision of notary organizations by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. The legal research method used is normative legal research, the approach used in this research is a statutory approach and a conceptual approach. The legal materials in this research are primary, secondary and tertiary legal materials. The urgency of regulating the supervision of notary organizations by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights is very urgent or important to be promulgated in the form of a Ministerial Regulation as an Implementing Regulation of Article 82 point 5 UUJN Amendment, to obtain legal certainty from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights so as to increase professionalism and quality of work as well as providing legal certainty and protection for clients and the wider community. And the factors that influence the lack of legal supervision of notary organizations by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights are: first, the legal substance factor (Legal Substance), the absence of a Ministerial Regulation as a legal basis for determining, coaching and supervising notary organizations. Second, the legal structure factor (Legal Structure) of Notary Organizations should be established by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights as an institution with authority to develop and supervise notary organizations. However, the absence of a Ministerial Regulation as a legal instrument that regulates the determination, guidance and supervision in accordance with the mandate of Article 82 means that the Ministry of Law and Human Rights does not have the authority to determine, guide and supervise notary organizations. Third, legal culture, this dualism in management shows an unhealthy notary organizational culture.