ABSTRAKKasus ini bermula dari sengketa kepemilikan Yayasan Pendidikan Cendekia
Utama (YPCU), antara Rektor Universitas Dr. Soetomo dan Organ Yayasan.
Rektor mengintimidasi Organ Yayasan dan berhasil mendapatkan Surat
Pernyataan Pengunduran Diri dan Surat Kuasa dari 3 (tiga) orang dari 4 (empat)
Dewan Pengurus Yayasan yang sekaligus juga Pendiri melalui prosedur yang
tidak sesuai dengan ketentuan Anggaran Dasar.
Dalam putusan Pengadilan Pidana Notaris sebagai yang membuat Akta
Pernyataan Keputusan Rapat dijatuhi hukuman karena telah melakukan Tindak
Pidana Pemalsuan Surat Pasal 264 ayat (1) ke-1 KUHPidana jo Pasal 55 ayat (1)
ke-1 KUHPidana dan Penerima Kuasa yang menghadap kepada Notaris untuk
membuat akta tersebut dijatuhi hukuman telah melakukan Tindak Pidana
Menyuruh Memasukan Keterangan Palsu Pasal 266 ayat (1) ke-1 KUHPidana jo
Pasal 55 ayat (1) ke-1 KUHPidana. Hasil penelitian yang diperoleh yaitu, Notaris
tidak dapat didakwa melakukan tindak pidana tersebut karena Notaris hanya
mengkonstantir apa yg ditulis dalam Risalah Rapat ke dalam akta Notaris, dan
Penerima Kuasa tidak dapat dimintai pertanggung jawabannya atas kebenaran
materiil dari tindakan hukum yang dikuasakan kepadanya sepanjang tidak dapat
dibuktikan sebaliknya.
Kesimpulan dari kasus ini seharusnya kepada Notaris lebih tepat didakwa telah
melakukan kelalaian/alpa karena tidak meneliti prosedur Rapat Organ Yayasan
sesuai Anggaran Dasar Yayasan dan Penerima Kuasa sepanjang tidak dapat
dibuktikan bahwa ia tahu tentang fakta hukum yang sebenarnya tidak dapat di
dakwa dengan pasal tersebut.
AbstractThis case begins with the dispute of ownership of Yayasan Pendidikan
CendekiaUtama (YPCU),between Rector of University of Dr. Soetomo and
Foundation Organ. The Rector intimidated Foundation Organ and obtained Letter
of Statement of Resignation and Power of Attorney from 3 (three) of 4 (four)
Board of Managements of Foundation that were also the Founders of the
Foundation through the inappropriate procedure with the provisions of Articles of
Association.
In the decision of Criminal Court, the Notary which denoting the statements of the
Minutes of Meeting into Deed of Statement of Meeting Resolution has been
punished because he/she has committed crime of Certificate Counterfeiting
pursuant to Article 264 Paragraph (1) number 1 of Criminal Code jo Article 55
Paragraph (1) number 1 of Criminal Code. Meanwhile, the Grantee who appeared
before the Notary to make the deed has been punished committing crime of
Ordering Someone to Make False Information pursuant to Article 266 Paragraph
(1) number 1 of Criminal Code jo Article 55 Paragraph (1) number 1 of Criminal
Code.
The result reveals that the Notary cannot be charged with such criminal act since
the Notary has only denoted the statement of what was written in Minutes of
Meeting into Notarial Deed.Moreover, the Grantee cannot be requested his/her
responsibility upon the valid material and legal action empowered to him as long
as it cannot be proved otherwise
The research concludes that it is more suitable if the Notary is charged with
dereliction/neglectful since he/she did noat examine the procedure ofFoundation
Organ Meeting in accordance with Foundation?s Articles of Association and the
Grantee as long as it cannot be proved that he knows the legal fact that actually
cannot be charged with such articles.
