PELEKATAN SIDIK JARI PADA MINUTA AKTA BERDASARKAN PASAL 16 AYAT (1) HURUF C UNDANG-UNDANG NOMOR 2 TAHUN 2014

ANUGERAH SARI REZEKI, Dr. Djoko Sukisno, S.H., C.N

2017 | Tesis | S2 Kenotariatan

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengkaji faktor apa saja yang mempengaruhi Notaris tidak melekatkan sidik jari pada minuta akta dan mengkaji implementasi sanksi Notaris terhadap Pasal 16 ayat (1) huruf c Undang-Undang Nomor 2 Tahun 2014. Jenis penelitian hukum empiris yang menggunakan data primer dan data sekunder melalui penelitian kepustakaan dan studi lapangan. Data sekunder bersumber dari bahan hukum primer, bahan hukum sekunder dan bahan hukum tersier. Subyek penelitian menggunakan teknik porposive sampling. Studi lapangan dilakukan di Kabupaten Sleman dengan subyek penelitian Ketua Majelis Pengawas Daerah (MPD) Sleman dan tiga orang Notaris. Data sekunder diperoleh dengan cara metode dokumentasi dengan alat studi dokumen, sedangkan data primer melalui wawancara dengan alat pedoman wawancara berstruktur. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa faktor yang mempengaruhi Notaris tidak melekatkan sidik jari pada minuta akta disebabkan aturan sidik jari pada Pasal 16 ayat (1) huruf c UUJNP tidak mengatur secara tegas dan jelas sehingga ada perbedaan pandangan dalam pelaksanaan pelekatan sidik jari dan mekanisme pelekatan sidik jari penghadap pada Pasal 16 ayat (1) huruf c UUJNP juga tidak menjelaskan secara tegas dan jelas. Organisasi Ikatan Notaris Indonesia (I.N.I) memberikan keputusan bahwa sidik jari penghadap yang diambil adalah sidik jari jempol tangan kanan, jika jempol tangan kanan bermasalah maka Notaris dapat mengambil sidik jari lainnya. Implementasi Sanksi Notaris terhadap Pasal 16 Ayat (1) huruf c UUJNP didalam praktek sampai sekarang pihak MPD tidak memberikan sanki pada Notaris karena sifat dari MPD bersifat pembinaan. MPD tidak dapat menjatuhkan sanksi yang represif pada Notaris. MPD hanya dapat melaporkan kepada MPW. Notaris yang melanggar ketentuan Pasal diatas wajib diberikan sanksi sesuai yang diterangkan pada Pasal 16 ayat (11) UUJNP. Pihak MPW dapat melakukan langkah preventif dengan menjatuhkan sanksi berupa teguran lisan juga tertulis dan penjatuhan sanksi ini sifatnya final. Mengusulkan sanksi terhadap Notaris kepada MPP (Majelis Pengawas Pusat) baik berupa; pemberhentian sementara 3 (tiga) bulan sampai 6 (enam) bulan, dan pemberhentian dengan tidak hormat.

The purpose of this research is to review the factor that affect Notary not to attach his fingerprint on attachment part in minuta deed and what is the Notary law effect of the attachment fingerprint on minuta deed to article 16 paragraph (1) letter C Act no 2 year 2014. This research is empirical law research using empirical case study which is legal behavior of the society. The main study is the law that drafted as actual behavior as social symptom which is not written, experienced by everyone in social relationships. The source of empirical law research is not based on positive written law, but the observation result on research location. The kind of data that obtained from field research is primary data, which is data that obtained directly by researcher in the field. The methode of data collection is library research, primary legal material, secondary legal material, and tertiary legal matrial. The subject of research using sampling technique, choosing 3 Notaries as respondents, interviewees from MPD Kabupaten Sleman, using porposive sampling. The location of research is working area of Notary in Kabupaten Sleman. How to collect data is using free guided interviews. Analysis of data result is using qualitative analysis. The result of research shows that factor which effect Notary not to attach fingerprint on attachment part in minuta deed is caused by the rules of fingerprint on article 16 paragraph (1) letter C UUJNP does not set assertively and clearly, so there is different views in implementation of attachment fingerprint and its mechanism. Indonesian Notary Bond Association gives decision that the fingerprint that used is thumb fingerprint on right hand, if the fingerptint has problem the Notary can use the others.The implementation of Notary sanctions to article 16 paragraph (1) letter C UUJNP in practice until this time is not given by MPD to Notary, because the character of MPD is coaching. MPD could only report to MPW. Notary who breaking the condition of article above must be given sanction according to the explanation of article 16 paragraph (11) UUJNP. MPW could do preventive way by giving verbal or written reprimands and this sanction is final. MPW could propose the MPP to give sanction to Notary like; temporary dismissal 3 (three) months until 6 (six) months, or disrespectful dismissal. Based on research result, it could be concluded that fingerprint attachment on minuta deed does not give effect to the authenticity of document, fingerprint attachment used in the protection of notaries and as evidence. Notaries who breaking the condition of article above must be given sanction according to the explanation of article 16 paragraph (11) UUJNP. The using of fingerprint on miuta deed does not matter the different views of interpretation, but Notaries are expected to be consistent in applications as well as technically fingerprinting, the aim of article 16 paragraph 1 letter C UUJNP is to gives protection to the Notary to prevent any denial of the interception of signatures which have been affixed and made before the Notary, and Minister of Justice and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia should make the law of fingerprint on minuta deed clearly and detail to gives the certainty of uniformity of implementation of article 16 paragraph 1 letter C UUJNP between tamper and Notaries.

Kata Kunci : Sidik Jari, Minuta Akta, Notaris