| Summary: | This research objective is to understand the background of the reasons that The
Notary is given authorize to legal advice and explore the liability of notary for legal
advice in act (case study No.13.Pid.N/TPK/2007/PN.Jkt.Pst at The Court of Corruption).
This research is a empirical juridical research, review law in history, philosophy,
comparative, legal system aspects and related with the facts occurred in society. The used
approach is the approach of legal content analysis, done legal review for legal substance,
legal system that influenced, and examinated court decision. The used data in this
research is secondary data and added primary data.
The result research express that Notary was given authorize for doing legal advice
in act, because according to Latin Notary Principle that adopted from civil law by Europe
continental countries, including Indonesia, Notary is legal expert qualified with full
knowledge. Legal Advice that Notary is given not be in contradiction with positive law.
In duty and authorize of Notary shall apply law in appropriate and might do to
rechtviding. So, Notary have preventive role in law enforcement. A Notarial Act is self
authenticating, direct and primary evidentiary status and endowed with executor force.
The liability of Notary for legal advice that given is mean that Notary have
liability on material truth of act. Even thought, notary just combine willingness parties,
Notary shall reject the request for drafting a notarial act against law. Liability of Notary
for tort could in form of: professional ethical liability, civil liability for damages, and
criminal liability.
|
|---|