ABSTRACT

This article examines the urgency of regulating the ne bis in idem principle within the mechanism of summoning and examining Notaries by the Notary Honorary Council (Majelis Kehormatan Notaris/MKN). The issue arises from the existence of an incomplete norm in Article 66 of the Indonesian Notary Law (UUJN), which does not explicitly regulate the finality of MKN decisions or the limitations on repeated requests for summoning concerning the same notarial deed. This normative incompleteness has manifested in practice through the Medan Administrative Court Decision Number 77/G/2018/PTUN.MDN and the Tanjung Pinang Administrative Court Decision Number 13/G/2018/PTUN.TPI. This study employs normative juridical research using the statute approach, conceptual approach, and case approach. The findings demonstrate that the regulation of the ne bis in idem principle is urgent because Article 66 of UUJN philosophically contradicts the Rechtsidee of Pancasila and the guarantee of Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution; sociologically causes violations of the principles of legal certainty and fair play; and juridically results in incomplete preventive protection and the risk of willekeur (arbitrariness). The conceptualization of such regulation is realized through four cumulative requirements: the identity of the Notary as the subject of the request (eadem personae); the identity of the notarial deed and the substance of the alleged violation (eadem res et eadem causa); the existence of a valid and final prior MKN decision on a request with identical substance; and the absence of novum as an exceptional requirement, with the burden of proof resting upon the applicant pursuant to the actori incumbit probatio principle. 

KEYWORDS: Ne Bis In Idem, Notary Honorary Council, Notary Summoning.