<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the disharmony of norms concerning the summoning of notaries by law enforcement officials in tax crime cases between Article 66 of the Law on Notary Position and Article 7 paragraph (5) letter e of Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2025. The urgency of this study arises from the absence of clear procedural synchronization, which creates legal uncertainty, overlapping authority, and potential violations of notarial confidentiality and due process of law. Previous studies have generally focused on the position of notaries as witnesses or on notarial ethics, but have not specifically examined the vertical normative conflict between the Law on Notary Position and Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2025 in tax crime proceedings. This study employs a normative juridical method using statutory and conceptual approaches with qualitative legal analysis. The findings reveal that the summoning of notaries in tax crime cases must still obtain prior approval from the Notary Honorary Council as mandated by Article 66 of the Law on Notary Position. The novelty of this study lies in the formulation of a vertical harmonization framework that positions the Law on Notary Position as the primary procedural norm and Supreme Court Regulation Number 3 of 2025 as a technical evidentiary norm, thereby strengthening legal certainty, ensuring due process of law, and protecting the dignity of the notarial office. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis disharmonisasi norma mengenai pemanggilan notaris oleh aparat penegak hukum dalam perkara pidana perpajakan antara Pasal 66 Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris dan Pasal 7 ayat (5) huruf e Peraturan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 3 Tahun 2025. Urgensi penelitian ini muncul karena belum adanya sinkronisasi prosedural yang jelas sehingga menimbulkan ketidakpastian hukum, tumpang tindih kewenangan, serta potensi pelanggaran terhadap kerahasiaan jabatan notaris dan due process of law. Penelitian sebelumnya umumnya hanya membahas kedudukan notaris sebagai saksi atau etika profesi notaris, namun belum secara khusus mengkaji konflik norma vertikal antara UUJN dan Perma 3/2025 dalam perkara pidana perpajakan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode yuridis normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan konseptual serta analisis hukum kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pemanggilan notaris dalam perkara pidana perpajakan tetap wajib memperoleh persetujuan Majelis Kehormatan Notaris sebagaimana diatur dalam Pasal 66 UUJN. Kebaruan penelitian ini terletak pada perumusan kerangka harmonisasi vertikal yang menempatkan UUJN sebagai norma prosedural utama dan Perma 3/2025 sebagai norma teknis pembuktian, sehingga mampu memperkuat kepastian hukum, menjamin due process of law, dan melindungi martabat jabatan notaris.]]>
