p-ISSN 2980-4868 | e-ISSN 2980-4841
https://ajesh.ph/index.php/gp
Limitations of the Use of Social Media in Notary
Positions Reviewed from the Notary Code of Ethics
Josias Anugrah1*, Chairunnisa
Said Selenggang2
1,2Universitas
Indonesia, Depok, DKI Jakarta, Indonesia
Email: josiasanugrah@gmail.com1*,
chnss.said@gmail.com2
ABSTRACT:
The use of social media as a platform for
notaries to publicize their work is increasingly rampant in today's digital
era. However, there are several limitations that need to be considered, and
many notaries are deemed to have violated the code of ethics and applicable
legal regulations. This research aims to identify the limitations in the use of
social media for notaries and the legal consequences if notaries promote
themselves on social media. The research method used is doctrinal research with
a normative juridical approach, involving an analysis of laws and regulations,
the notary code of ethics, and related case studies. The results of the study
indicate that the activities of using social media for notaries have
restrictions, such as the prohibition on publishing or promoting themselves by
listing their positions. Violations of these limitations can result in moral
sanctions or legal sanctions. These findings have important implications for
notary practices and regulatory enforcement in the digital era.
Keywords: Notary,
Notary Ethics, Social Media.
INTRODUCTION
Notaries as Public Officials
whose function is to serve the community in the field of civil law must have
high integrity to the community and the state as the authority giver who has
entrusted the position held to make authentic evidence
The latest Notary Code of Ethics
was decided on May 29-30, 2015, in Banten, where it was previously decided on
January 28, 2005, at the INI congress in Bandung. In the Code of Ethics, it is
regulated regarding the obligations, prohibitions, and supervision provided by
the Notary Honorary Council as well as the sanctions given to violations
committed. This Code of Ethics applies to and must be obeyed by all persons who
carry out the duties of their position as a Notary, including Temporary Notary
Officials and Substitute Notaries when carrying out their positions
In the Notary Code of Ethics,
Article 4 paragraph (3) prohibits notaries and other parties holding notarial
positions from publicizing or promoting themselves, either alone or together,
by mentioning their names and positions using print and/or electronic media, in
the form of advertisements, congratulatory messages, condolences, thank-you
messages, marketing activities, and sponsorship activities, whether in social,
religious, or sporting fields.
In practice, many Notaries still
abuse their electronic media as an event to attract clients and promote
themselves. One of the cases in the use of Instagram social media is where many
Notaries show their identity, such as listing in a photo or bio that they are a
founder of a Limited Liability Company or as a director in a company, as well
as making invitations such as receiving consulting services and cheap services
for doing deeds. The notary's behavior, as mentioned above, cannot be
justified. Notaries are rampant in listing their names and positions on their
social media consciously or unconsciously, which violates the rules in the
Notary Code of Ethics. As a real example that has happened, a Notary in
Surabaya has a child who is a YouTuber, and the son of the Notary made a video
entitled "A Day in My Life in Notary's Office" and uploaded it on his
YouTube account, so it was reported to the Notary Supervisory Council to follow
up on the matter.
There are other activities that
are rampant for Notaries to do, such as conducting digital education through
their social media related to legal knowledge relevant to the purpose of
education, but still including their names and positions, this is still included
in the element of self-promotion. Based on that, the author is interested in
writing this article with a focus on the study of the use of social media that
is and is not allowed for notaries referring to the Notary Code of Ethics and
the legal consequences if the notary violates these provisions. The preparation
of this article is carried out using a study focused on the theory of how law
works.
Regarding avoiding plagiarism in
this writing, the author lists articles that have similarities with this
article, including those written by Tri Noviyanti
The aim of the research
in this article is to examine the specific limitations that Notaries are
permitted to observe in their use of social media, and to analyze
the legal consequences they may face in case of violations.
RESEARCH METHODS
The research method used in this
study is doctrinal law which refers to legal norms with a normative juridical
approach. The use of methods in writing this article is through literature
materials or secondary data related to legal principles referred to as
normative legal research or literature law
RESULTS
AND DISCUSSION
Implementation of Notary Position as a Public Officer
A notary as a Public Official is
a person with certain conditions who receives authority from the state attributable
to carry out some of the state's public functions, especially in the field of
civil law (private law) to make authentic evidence. The public function is not
in the public sense in the field of public law but in the implementation of
state services to the community in the field of civil law regarding the
creation of evidence as contained in Articles 1866 and 1867 of the Civil Code
The legal basis for the position
of Notary based on Staatsblad 1860 No. 3 has been
revoked and is no longer valid with the promulgation of Law No. 30 of 2004
concerning the Notary Position and then amended by Law No. 2 of 2014. This
regulation is the legal basis for the position of Notary until now. In the
UUJN, it is stated that Notaries are appointed and dismissed by the Minister of
Law and Human Rights with the function and duty of the Notary to provide
services to the community in the field of law, namely in the field of making
authentic evidence.
In addition to the regulations
in the UUJN, Notaries are also subject to the Notary Code of Ethics made by
INI. Basically, the Notary Code of Ethics aims to maintain the dignity and
dignity of the Notary position in how its members behave in carrying out their
positions and to protect public citizens, especially those who are facing
clients who will carry out legal acts with Notaries from abuse of expertise
and/or professional authority
Limitations of Social Media by Notaries in the Implementation of the
Notary Code of Ethics
The Notary Code of Ethics in its
rules contains various provisions in the form of obligations, prohibitions,
exceptions, supervision, examinations and sanctions for Notaries who are proven
to have committed violations. As mentioned above, Article 4 of the Notary Code
of Ethics regulates the prohibition of publication or self-promotion activities
by Notaries. Publication is an activity that is carried out to increase
attention to a place, person or cause of valuable information that is usually
contained in a media, including social media. The definition of promotion can
be seen in Article 1 number 6 of Law Number 8 of 1999 concerning Consumer
Protection which states that promotion is the activity of introducing or
disseminating information about a good and/or service to attract consumers'
interest in buying goods and or services that will be and are being traded.
Based on this understanding, it
can be seen that the a difference in the meaning of
the two words between publication and promotion, but they are mutually
sustainable. The publication is an activity to make information about a person,
an item, and others available to the wider community, while promotion is a
follow-up activity of publication with the aim of influencing others. The use
of social media for professions is widely applied in order to
promote their work or business, one of which is Notary. Based on data obtained
from Data Indonesia, the number of social media users in Indonesia until 2024
is 139 million people, equivalent to 49.9% of the population in the country.
This figure shows that social media attracts users from all walks of life. This
is proven that social media has a great impact on society, including for
Notaries in Indonesia. The use of social media for some Notaries is used as a
medium to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of public services which is
supported by the provisions of Article 4 letter c of Law Number 19 of 2016
concerning Amendments to Law Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and
Electronic Transactions. The implementation of this article is an important
part of the capacity of the legal profession, especially Notaries in carrying
out their functions and positions, including the dissemination of legal
information, legal documentation, and those related to the position of the
Notary itself.
The prohibitions regulated in
Article 4 paragraph (3) of the Notary Code of Ethics have exceptions regulated
in Article 5 of the Notary Code of Ethics which are not considered a violation,
including: "giving congratulations, condolences by using greeting cards,
letters, bouquets or other media by not including the Notary, but only the
name." This exception also emphasizes that only names can be listed, not
positions. Notaries who have the function of serving the community should not
be allowed to do things aimed at making profits, including marketing services
through social media or in any form. A noble office holder must understand the
difference between a position and business activities so that economic tricks
cannot be applied in the world of a notary. Business focuses its goal on making
profits, while a noble office must focus on providing selfless service to the
community.
However, Notaries are exempt
from publishing or promoting themselves using print and/or electronic media as
stipulated in Article 4 paragraph (3) of the Notary Code of Ethics. Based on
incidents that often occur in the field, some of the social media used by
Notaries are Instagram, TikTok, Facebook, X, and many more. Not a few Notaries
also have websites or blogs and other social networks by openly list their
names and positions to attract public attention. From the results of the
literature research carried out, it can be drawn that the criteria for
violations in the use of social media for Notaries, namely:
1.
Include the word
"Notary" after the mention of the full name on the social media
account or in the bio of the account owner.
2.
Include information about the
position as a notary accompanied by the area of the Notary concerned's
position.
3.
Include the address and phone
number of the Notary office.
4.
Upload captions or captions in
the form of an invitation to make a deed or perform legal acts only at the
Notary office concerned.
5.
Inform in the form of photos or
videos to attract the public's attention to choose the Notary office, such as a
cheap discount in making deeds.
Acts of publication and
self-promotion carried out by the Notary do not necessarily show a violation of
Article 4 paragraph (3) of the Notary Code of Ethics. However, in following up
on the violation in question, the Honorary Council first provides conditions
for the existence of a report that has been received previously and there is
concrete and strong evidence showing a violation of the code of ethics. In the event that a violation is found, the Notary will only
be sanctioned by the Honorary Council in accordance with the Notary Code of
Ethics.
This prohibition of
self-promotion is not allowed according to the Supervisory Council and the
Notary Honorary Council, because the position of Notary is a noble and noble
position, has dignity and dignity that prioritizes the trust of the community.
Self-promotion for Notaries on social media is not allowed because it is to
prevent competition among fellow Notaries. The foundation of Notary work is
driven by the ideals of society with ethics based on morals. Morality can be
seen in how a Notary acts and behaves.
Law Enforcement against the Notary Code of Ethics on the Prohibition
of Promotions for Notaries
Notaries as an independent
position need to be supervised to prevent arbitrariness in carrying out their
positions. Supervision of Notaries is carried out by the Minister of Law and
Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia as contained in Article 67 of the
UUJN. The Minister established the Notary Supervisory Council (MPN) which is a
body that has the authority and obligation to carry out guidance and
supervision of Notaries. This ministerial apparatus is authorized to supervise
Notaries in the category of carrying out their duties, while INI also forms an
organization that functions as a control in the implementation of the code of
ethics in the membership section internally, namely the Notary Honorary
Council. The basis for the formation of this organization is to supervise the
implementation of the Notary Code of Ethics that has been stipulated in the
Notary Code of Ethics regarding obligations, prohibitions, and exemptions that
must be implemented for all members of the organization and to make decisions
on alleged violations of the provisions of the Notary Code of Ethics that are
internal or have no direct connection with the interests of the community.
Regarding the fact of the
alleged violation committed by the Notary, the Regional Honorary
Council/Regional Honorary Council/Central Honorary Council may seek the facts
of the allegation on its own initiative or may also after receiving a written
complaint from a member of the INI association or from another person
accompanied by concrete evidence that a violation has occurred as stipulated in
Article 8 of the Notary Code of Ethics. In the event that
the Honorary Council finds the facts of the alleged violation, no later than 14
(fourteen) working days it is mandatory to conduct an examination and summon
the member concerned in writing to ensure the violation of the Code of Ethics
and provide an opportunity to the person concerned to provide a defence.
Article 1 paragraph (8) of the
Notary Code of Ethics provides firmness if there is a violation, it will be
followed up by the Honorary Council with sanctions as stipulated in Article 6
of the Notary Code of Ethics, that:
"Sanctions imposed on
members who violate the code of ethics can be in the form of:
a.
Rebuke;
b.
Commemoration;
c.
Temporary suspension from
association membership;
d.
Honorable dismissal from
association members;
e.
Dishonorable dismissal from the
membership of the association."
The urgency of granting sanctions to Notaries is
very important for the realization of professionalism within the framework of
effective regulations required in the form of sanctions, where sanctions will
have a deterrent effect on Notaries who commit violations. In imposing
sanctions against notaries, there are several conditions that must be met. Some
of these conditions include fulfilment in the formulation of acts that are not
justified or prohibited by law, the occurrence of losses due to these acts, and
acts committed against the law, both formally and materially. Formal indicates
that the formulation of the laws and regulations has been met, while material
means that the test results have been fulfilled through the Notary Code of
Ethics which is a benchmark or aspect of limitations carried out by notaries in
the event of violations.
CONCLUSION
The use of social media for
Notaries has limitations that must be applied so as not to violate the
provisions of the Notary Code of Ethics for publishing and promoting
themselves. Notaries are not allowed to do this as a logical risk by the
position of a Notary as a public official in serving the community. In
overcoming violations that occur, supervision is carried out on Notaries
through institutions that enforce the UUJN and the Notary Code of Ethics,
namely the Notary Supervisory Council and the Notary Honorary Council. The
determination of sanctions to the violating Notary is proposed by the
Supervisory Council as an authority in the form of temporary dismissal or even
in a disrespectful manner. The decision issued is final or final.
Aisyiah, C., & Wisnuwardhani, D. A. (2022). Notary, public official or
public official: implications for the position of notary. Jurnal
Cakrawala Hukum, 13(3), 242–252.
ApS, D. (2007). Code
of ethics. Australian Psychological Society Melbourne, Victoria.
Australia, E. C. (2006). Code of ethics. Early
Childhood Australia.
Closen, M. L. (1997). The Public Official Role of the
Notary. J. Marshall L. Rev., 31, 651.
Fuqua, J. O. (1867). Civil Code of the State of
Louisiana: With the Statutory Amendments from 1825 to 1866 Inclusive, and
References to the Decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana to the
Seventeenth Volume of the Annual Reports, Inclusive, with an Exhaustive Index.
B. Bloomfield.
Hutchinson, T. (2015). The doctrinal method: Incorporating
interdisciplinary methods in reforming the law. Erasmus L. Rev., 8,
130.
Juanda, E., Rofiq, A., & Ma’ruf, U. (2023). Legal Reconstruction of Judges’
Decision on Obscure Lawsuit Exception Based on Justice Value. Sch Int J Law
Crime Justice, 6(3), 177–182.
NE Varuhas, J. (2023). Mapping
doctrinal methods. In Researching Public Law in Common Law Systems (pp.
70–103). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789904383.00009
Noviyanti, T., &
Ratna, E. (n.d.). Akibat Hukum Notaris
Mempromosikan Diri Di Sosial Media Instagram. Notarius,
15(2), 566–576.
Organisation, N. Z. N.
(2010). Code of ethics. New Zealand Nurses Organisation.
Purnomo, H. (2022). Providing Legal Assistance For Defendants In Examination Of Criminal Cases In State
Courts. Dalihan Na Tolu: Jurnal Hukum, Politik Dan Komunikasi Indonesia, 1(01), 40–47.
Ridwan, M. (2020). Reconstruction Of Notary Position
Authority and Implementation Of Basic Concepts Of
Cyber Notary. J Akta, 7(1).
Saputra, R., & Djajaputra, G.
(2018). PENEGAKAN HUKUM TERHADAP NOTARIS YANG MEMPROMOSIKAN DIRI MELALUI MEDIA
SOSIAL. Jurnal Hukum Adigama,
1(1), 1941. https://doi.org/10.24912/adigama.v1i1.2312
Taekema, S., & van
der Burg, W. (2024). Methods of doctrinal research. In Contextualising
Legal Research (pp. 44–78). Edward Elgar Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035307395.00010
Trijono, R. (2019).
Pushing The Improvement of The Indonesian Legal Database For
Law Research and Economic Research. Indonesian Law Journal, 12,
75–90.
Utomo, W., Isnaini, H., Suhartono, S., & Isnaeni, M.
(2019). The Position of Honorary Council of Notary in Coaching Indonesian
Notaries. JL Pol’y & Globalization, 92,
126.
Victoria, O. A., Ariyana, A. R., & Arifani,
D. (2020). Code of Ethics and Position of Notary in Indonesia. Sultan Agung
Notary Law Review, 2(4), 397–407.
Vranken, J. B. M. (2010). Methodology of legal doctrinal
research. In Methodologies of legal research. Which kind of method for what
kind of discipline (pp. 111–121). Hart Publishing.
XIII, R. P. (2016). Code of ethics.
Zaki, M., & Saidin, S. (2024). Legal Protection and Law
Assistance to Notaries as a Public Official in Indonesia. Samarah:
Jurnal Hukum Keluarga Dan
Hukum Islam, 8(2), 821–846.
|
Josias Anugrah, Chairunnisa Said Selenggang (2024) |
|
First publication
right: Asian Journal of Engineering, Social and
Health (AJESH) |
|
This article is
licensed under: |