<![CDATA[This thesis examines the legal uncertainty arising from Article 43 paragraph (2) of Law Number 30 of 2004 concerning the Office of Notary, as amended by Law Number 2 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the Notary Office Law), particularly regarding the obligation of a notary to translate or explain the contents of a deed to foreign nationals appearing before a notary. This provision creates normative issues because it does not clearly define the parameters of “translating or explaining” and gives rise to potential interpretative conflicts within Article 43 of the Notary Office Law. These issues are reflected in the Decision of the Denpasar District Court Number 1308/Pdt.G/2019/PN Dps, where the lack of clarity in Article 43 resulted in legal consequences for both the parties and the notary involved. This study addresses three research questions: (1) how legal certainty is ensured with respect to a prenuptial agreement executed before a notary but not translated into a language understood by a foreign party; (2) what legal issues arise from the judicial reasoning in the decision annulling the prenuptial agreement; and (3) how future regulations concerning the translation of notarial deeds should be formulated. The findings indicate that a prenuptial agreement executed before a notary without being translated into a language understood by a foreign party does not provide optimal legal certainty. Nevertheless, such a deed does not automatically lose its authentic character, provided that the notary can demonstrate that the deed was executed in accordance with statutory requirements and that its contents were adequately explained to and understood by the parties. Furthermore, the court decision applied the doctrine of undue influence in an unbalanced manner by disregarding the element of good faith, while also interpreting the obligation to “translate or explain” as a cumulative rather than an alternative requirement. Accordingly, future legal regulation should clarify the obligation to translate or explain notarial deeds, as well as establish explicit sanctions for violations of Article 43 paragraph (2) of the Notary Office Law. This study recommends that notaries adopt preventive measures when drafting deeds involving foreign parties, including documenting that the deed has been explained or translated and obtaining statements regarding the refusal of an official translator where applicable. Judges should also take the principle of good faith into account when assessing allegations of undue influence. In addition, legislators should reformulate Article 43 of the Notary Office Law concerning the language of deeds, the obligation to translate or explain their contents, and the sanctions for non-compliance. Finally, supervisory bodies and the Indonesian Notary Association should strengthen guidance and oversight of notaries in handling deeds involving foreign parties.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
