Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.444
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal SUPREMASI: Jurnal Pemikiran, Penelitian Ilmu-Ilmu Sosial, Hukum dan Pengajarannya Indonesia Private Law Review
Anwar Borahima
Universitas Hasanuddin
Education Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Social Sciences

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
TANGGUNG JAWAB NOTARIS DALAM PRINSIP KEMANDIRIAN NOTARIS DALAM PERSEKUTUAN PERDATA NOTARIS Ratna Ningsih; Anwar Borahima; Muhammad Ilham Arisaputra
SUPREMASI: Jurnal Pemikiran, Penelitian Ilmu-ilmu Sosial, Hukum dan Pengajarannya Vol 17, No 2 (2022)
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Makassar

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26858/supremasi.v17i2.32394

Abstract

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis dan memahami tentang mekanisme kerja Notaris dalam persekutuan perdata notaris serta tanggung jawab Notaris yang tergabung dalam persekutuan perdata notaris. Tipe penelitian ini adalah penelitian empiris yang membahas tentang mekanisme kerja serta tanggung jawab Notaris dalam persekutuan perdata notaris, dengan mengumpulkan data primer berupa hasil wawancara dan data sekunder yang diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan. Data yang diperoleh lalu dianalisis secara kualitatif. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa, meskipun Notaris tergabung dalam satu persekutuan perdata notaris, tetap hanya akan ada satu Notaris yang bertanda tangan dalam satu akta. Hanya Notaris yang membuat akta yang dapat membubuhkan tanda tangan pada akta, baik pada Minuta akta dan Salinan akta, mulai dari awal akta hingga akhir akta. Notaris yang tergabung dalam persekutuan perdata notaris dalam menjalankan jabatannya tetap bertindak secara sendiri-sendiri dan segala tanggung jawab atas akta yang dibuat oleh atau dihadapan Notaris, menjadi tanggung jawab secara pribadi, termasuk pula segala dokumen protokol yang disimpannya.
ASSESSING THE EVIDENTIARY POWER: NOTARIZED AUTOPSY REPORTS VERSUS VISUM ET REPERTUM Marwah Marwah; Anwar Borahima; Ahsan Yunus; Alya Saphira; Santy Kouwagam
Indonesia Private Law Review Vol. 6 No. 2 (2025)
Publisher : Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.25041/iplr.v6i2.4536

Abstract

In cases of murder or suspicious death, an autopsy reports serve as crucial evidence in criminal adjudication. Based on Indonesian criminal procedural law, a Visum et Repertum issued by an authorized forensic doctor is legally recognized as expert evidence for determining the cause, manner, and circumstances of death. In the case examined, both the Visum et Repertum and the testimony of a general practitioner who observed the autopsy process, subsequently legalized by a notary, were submitted as evidence in criminal proceedings. This study examines the normative ambiguity between criminal procedural law and notarial law, particularly regarding the evidentiary status of a general practitioner’s testimony concerning autopsy observations that is subsequently legalized by a notary. This research uses a normative legal analysis, drawing on statutory and conceptual approaches, to analyze the framework of criminal procedural law, regulations governing medical practice, and the juridical limits of notarial authority. The findings confirm that submitting a general practitioner’s testimony on autopsy observations, even when legalized by a notary, does not create a conflict of norms. Instead, it constitutes a misapplication of evidentiary principles. A Visum et Repertum, prepared by a duly authorized forensic physician, possesses definitive evidentiary authority as it is issued within statutory mandate. By contrast, the testimony of a general practitioner, even if notarized, lacks the legal force to constitute valid evidence, as notaries are not authorized to legitimize forensic medical findings. This article clarifies that notarizing autopsy observations does not create normative conflict, but reflects a misapplication of evidentiary authority in criminal procedure.
Co-Authors Ahsan Yunus Alya Saphira Marwah Marwah Muhammad Ilham Arisaputra Ratna Ningsih Santy Kouwagam