Reconstructing Notarial Honorarium Discretion In Indonesia A Doctrinal And Policy Analysis Of Article 36 Of The Notary Law

Abstract

The determination of notarial honorarium in Indonesia, regulated under Article 36 of the Notary Law (UUJN), grants wide discretionary authority to notaries without clear parameters. This ambiguity generates legal uncertainty, risks of unfair competition, and potential conflicts with ethical and consumer protection principles. Addressing this regulatory gap is crucial to ensure fairness, accountability, and alignment with the rule of law. This study adopts a doctrinal legal research method combined with policy analysis. It examines statutory provisions, jurisprudence, and ethical codes of the notarial profession, supported by comparative insights from the Netherlands, France, and the United States. The analysis is also framed by John Rawls's theory of justice to evaluate the fairness dimension of notarial fee discretion. The findings indicate that the current framework of Article 36 UUJN fails to provide measurable standards for honorarium determination. In practice, notarial discretion often prioritizes market dynamics over socio-economic fairness, thereby undermining transparency and public trust. Comparative studies reveal that other jurisdictions employ clear indicators, fee bands, and regulatory oversight to balance professional autonomy with public interest. The study recommends a reconstructed model of honorarium regulation in Indonesia by establishing explicit indicators such as socio-economic value, case complexity, and service standards, accompanied by enforceable oversight mechanisms. This approach strengthens legal certainty, enhances accountability, and ensures equitable access to notarial services, contributing to broader justice and governance reform.