<![CDATA[Article 66 of the UUJN mandates prior approval from the Notary Honorary Council (Majelis Kehormatan Notaris, MKN) for lawsuits against notaries in Indonesia, aiming to protect their professional independence. This study examines the effectiveness, challenges, comparative insights, and reform recommendations regarding Article 66. Effectiveness analysis reveals that while the provision shields notaries from frivolous litigation, it impedes access to justice due to procedural complexities and delays. Transparency issues in MKN decision-making and perceived biases further complicate its implementation. Comparative insights from France, Germany, and the United States highlight best practices such as independent oversight mechanisms and transparent criteria, suggesting reforms to enhance accountability and fairness. Recommendations include establishing clear, public criteria for MKN approvals, setting procedural timelines, and introducing independent review mechanisms to address bias concerns. These reforms aim to maintain notarial integrity while ensuring equitable access to justice. Thus, while Article 66 serves to safeguard notarial functions, addressing its challenges through strategic reforms can foster public trust and strengthen Indonesia's legal framework.]]>
Copyrights © 2024
