ppat公证员基于当事人虚假信息立契的法律保护

Euis Istianti
{"title":"ppat公证员基于当事人虚假信息立契的法律保护","authors":"Euis Istianti","doi":"10.30659/SANLAR.V3I3.17257","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The focus of this research has the following objectives: (1) legal certainty over the deed and the notary's responsibility for false statements of the parties; (2) legal protection for PPAT notaries who make a deed of sale and purchase based on false information from the parties. (3) an example of the waiver of rights if it turns out that there are false statements from the parties in accordance with article 51 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code. This study uses a normative juridical research method, with the collection of literature study data, and the theory used is Hans Khelsen's Theory of Legal Protection. The results of the study conclude: (1) A notary deed will not have legal certainty if the notary as a public official (openbaar ambtenaar) who is authorized to make an authentic deed does not make a deed in accordance with applicable regulations or is carried out against the law. (2) Legal protection for a PPAT notary who makes a deed of sale and purchase based on the parties' false information is only based on the right of denial and good faith of the notary himself, if the notary does not have good faith, then the right of refusal does not apply. (3) Waiver of rights if it turns out that there is false information from the parties in accordance with Article 51 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, if the notary participates in the false information, then the notary cannot be free from punishment. Suggestions put forward: (1) The Public Prosecutor should add the related article into a claim in Article 264 Paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph (1) and 56 Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code. And there should also be a claim against the party who ordered to do this forgery and use this fake deed so that justice is truly served. (2) The Notary should be able to refuse requests from the appearers that are not in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, this is also a form of prudence of a Notary in order to avoid legal problems that will harm later. (3) Notaries should have and have good intentions to account for their actions.","PeriodicalId":279949,"journal":{"name":"Sultan Agung Notary Law Review","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Legal Protection of PPAT-Notary in Making A Deed Based on False Information of Parties\",\"authors\":\"Euis Istianti\",\"doi\":\"10.30659/SANLAR.V3I3.17257\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The focus of this research has the following objectives: (1) legal certainty over the deed and the notary's responsibility for false statements of the parties; (2) legal protection for PPAT notaries who make a deed of sale and purchase based on false information from the parties. (3) an example of the waiver of rights if it turns out that there are false statements from the parties in accordance with article 51 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code. This study uses a normative juridical research method, with the collection of literature study data, and the theory used is Hans Khelsen's Theory of Legal Protection. The results of the study conclude: (1) A notary deed will not have legal certainty if the notary as a public official (openbaar ambtenaar) who is authorized to make an authentic deed does not make a deed in accordance with applicable regulations or is carried out against the law. (2) Legal protection for a PPAT notary who makes a deed of sale and purchase based on the parties' false information is only based on the right of denial and good faith of the notary himself, if the notary does not have good faith, then the right of refusal does not apply. (3) Waiver of rights if it turns out that there is false information from the parties in accordance with Article 51 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, if the notary participates in the false information, then the notary cannot be free from punishment. Suggestions put forward: (1) The Public Prosecutor should add the related article into a claim in Article 264 Paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph (1) and 56 Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code. And there should also be a claim against the party who ordered to do this forgery and use this fake deed so that justice is truly served. (2) The Notary should be able to refuse requests from the appearers that are not in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, this is also a form of prudence of a Notary in order to avoid legal problems that will harm later. (3) Notaries should have and have good intentions to account for their actions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":279949,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sultan Agung Notary Law Review\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sultan Agung Notary Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30659/SANLAR.V3I3.17257\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sultan Agung Notary Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30659/SANLAR.V3I3.17257","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的重点在于:(1)契约的法律确定性及公证员对当事人虚假陈述的责任;(2) PPAT公证员根据当事人提供的虚假信息制作买卖契约的法律保护。(三)根据《刑法》第五十一条第二款的规定,经证实当事人有虚假陈述的,放弃权利的例子。本研究采用规范的法学研究方法,收集文献研究资料,运用的理论为汉斯·凯尔森的法律保护理论。研究的结论是:(1)如果作为公务人员(openbaar amtenaar)的公证人被授权制作真实的公证,但没有按照适用的法规制作公证或违法执行公证,那么公证证书将不具有法律确定性。(2) PPAT公证员基于当事人的虚假信息作出买卖契约的法律保护仅基于公证员本人的拒绝权和诚信,如果公证员没有诚信,则拒绝权不适用。(3)根据刑法第51条第2款的规定,被证明当事人提供虚假信息的,放弃权利,如果公证员参与了虚假信息,那么公证员不能免于处罚。建议:(1)检察官应结合刑法第55条第1款、第56条第1款、第2款在第264条第1款的请求权中增加有关条款。也应该对下令伪造和使用这份假契约的一方提出索赔,这样正义才真正得到伸张。(2)公证员应当能够拒绝不符合立法规定的出证人的请求,这也是公证员的一种审慎形式,以避免法律问题对以后造成伤害。(3)公证人应当有并有良好的意愿为自己的行为负责。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Legal Protection of PPAT-Notary in Making A Deed Based on False Information of Parties
The focus of this research has the following objectives: (1) legal certainty over the deed and the notary's responsibility for false statements of the parties; (2) legal protection for PPAT notaries who make a deed of sale and purchase based on false information from the parties. (3) an example of the waiver of rights if it turns out that there are false statements from the parties in accordance with article 51 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code. This study uses a normative juridical research method, with the collection of literature study data, and the theory used is Hans Khelsen's Theory of Legal Protection. The results of the study conclude: (1) A notary deed will not have legal certainty if the notary as a public official (openbaar ambtenaar) who is authorized to make an authentic deed does not make a deed in accordance with applicable regulations or is carried out against the law. (2) Legal protection for a PPAT notary who makes a deed of sale and purchase based on the parties' false information is only based on the right of denial and good faith of the notary himself, if the notary does not have good faith, then the right of refusal does not apply. (3) Waiver of rights if it turns out that there is false information from the parties in accordance with Article 51 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, if the notary participates in the false information, then the notary cannot be free from punishment. Suggestions put forward: (1) The Public Prosecutor should add the related article into a claim in Article 264 Paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph (1) and 56 Paragraph (1) and Paragraph (2) of the Criminal Code. And there should also be a claim against the party who ordered to do this forgery and use this fake deed so that justice is truly served. (2) The Notary should be able to refuse requests from the appearers that are not in accordance with the provisions of the legislation, this is also a form of prudence of a Notary in order to avoid legal problems that will harm later. (3) Notaries should have and have good intentions to account for their actions.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信