Electronic certificates as authentic deeds Provisions governing as well as public doubts
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Advances in digital technology continue to develop rapidly, this development will result in the birth of new legal products, one of which is the Regulation of the Minister of Agrarian Affairs / Head of BPN Number 1 of 2021 concerning electronic certificates, which was declared effective when it was announced in early 2021. This Ministerial Regulation refers to article 147 of Law Number 11 of 2020 concerning Work Creation. Polemics have occurred when linked to article 5 paragraph 4 of Law No. 11 of 2008 on ITE jo Law No. 19 of 2016 which rejects notarial deeds and PPAT deeds made in electronic form. Then with the existence of Law No. 1 of 2024 concerning the Second Amendment to the ITE Law at origin 5 paragraph 4 changing the norm that previously prohibited notary or PPAT products in electronic form and then submitting to the laws that regulate it, so that based on article 147 of the Ciptaker Law and article 5 paragraph 4 of the ITE Law No. 1 of 2024, electronic certificates can be declared as authentic deeds because these two regulations are in accordance with article 1868 BW concerning the form of authentic deeds. However, the Ministerial Regulation on electronic certificates is not yet compliant with BW, such as article 1866 BW which does not recognise the term electronic authentic deed, article 1886 BW on the submission of electronic authentic deeds in court and how to submit them if they are in electronic form, Article 137 HIR states that if the parties deny a deed in court, the deed must be produced before the judge, and preparations for producing the authentic deed in the form of an electronic certificate must include hardware such as a monitor to directly view the contents of the deed and software, namely the availability of a computer network for all courts in Indonesia. And what is very important is article 1888 BW, which states that the evidentiary power of a deed is in the original deed and not in an excerpt, copy or photocopy, while the electronic certificate of the original data is stored on the server, and the public only has an excerpt, unlike the analogue certificate of the original data is in the community. It is a hope for the public that the data will be secured by a reliable programme and strong IT security, so that it is not easily attacked by hackers.
Article Details
Adnan, H. R., Hidayanto, A. N., & Kurnia, S. (2021). Citizens’ or government’s will? Exploration of why indonesia’s local governments adopt technologies for open government. Sustainability, 13(20), 11197.
Basoeky, U. (2019). Legal Reconstruction: Ingsutan Paradigmatic on the Determination of the Positivism Paradigm and Legal Positivism in Law Enforcement in Indonesia. International Journal of Science and Society, 1(4), 154–175.
Blanchard, O., Leandro, A., & Zettelmeyer, J. (2021). Redesigning EU fiscal rules: From rules to standards. Economic Policy, 36(106), 195–236.
Brown, I., & Marsden, C. T. (2023). Regulating code: Good governance and better regulation in the information age. MIT Press.
Chatterjee, S. (2020). AI strategy of India: policy framework, adoption challenges and actions for government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 14(5), 757–775.
Effiong, M. E. (2020). A Framework for the Adoption of Blockchain Technology in Academic Certificate-Verification Systems: A Case Study in Nigeria. MSc Thesis, Talinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia.
Friedman, L. M., & Ladinsky, J. (2021). Social change and the law of industrial accidents. In Governing Risks (pp. 127–159). Routledge.
Garcia-Teruel, R. M. (2020). Legal challenges and opportunities of blockchain technology in the real estate sector. Journal of Property, Planning and Environmental Law, 12(2), 129–145.
Haikal, M. N., & Mahmudah, S. (2024). Implementation, Advantages and Barriers and Legal Protection Against the Use of Electronic Signatures. Journal of Social Research, 3(6), 1179–1195.
Indriati, E. D., & Nugroho, N. (2022). Philosophy of law and the development of law as a normative legal science. International Journal of Educational Research & Social Sciences, 3(1), 314–321.
Lloyd, I. (2020). Information technology law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Milakovich, M. E. (2021). Digital governance: Applying advanced technologies to improve public service. Routledge.
Newman, J., Mintrom, M., & O’Neill, D. (2022). Digital technologies, artificial intelligence, and bureaucratic transformation. Futures, 136, 102886.
Roblek, V., Bach, M. P., Meško, M., & Bertoncel, T. (2020). Best practices of the social innovations in the framework of the e-government evolution. Amfiteatru Economic, 22(53), 275–302.
Rosenbloom, D. H., Kravchuk, R. S., & Clerkin, R. M. (2022). Public administration: Understanding management, politics, and law in the public sector. Routledge.
Schilling-Vacaflor, A., Lenschow, A., Challies, E., Cotta, B., & Newig, J. (2021). Contextualizing certification and auditing: Soy certification and access of local communities to land and water in Brazil. World Development, 140, 105281.
Sharma, S., Gamoura, S., Prasad, D., & Aneja, A. (2021). Emerging Legal Informatics towards Legal Innovation: Current status and future challenges and opportunities. Legal Information Management, 21(3–4), 218–235.
Smith, B., & Browne, C. A. (2021). Tools and weapons: The promise and the peril of the digital age. Penguin.
Takao?lu, M., Dursun, T., Do?an, A., Er, H., Bozkurt Günay, B., Emeç, C., Kumru, A., Demir, S., Kurt Toplu, S., & Özcandan, N. (2023). The Impact of Self-Sovereign Identities on CyberSecurity.
Wang, S., Rao, F., Ma, X., & Shi, X. (2022). Farmland Dispute Prevention: The Role of Land Titling, Social Capital and Household Capability. Land, 11(10), 1742.
Webster, A., & Gardner, J. (2019). Aligning technology and institutional readiness: the adoption of innovation. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 31(10), 1229–1241.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.