This study aims to describe Legal Opinion as a Legal Problem Solving Method. The method used in this study is normative legal research; meanwhile the approach used in this study is legal research method. The results revealed that firstly based on legal issues which certainly cannot be separated from the field of law to be studied, while the preparation of legal opinions depends on the depth of knowledge of the legal field what will be found, it is seen in the analysis used in order to find legal problem solving that can be prescription of the legal issue. Therefore, the role of legal opinion in the structure of the layer of legal science can be useful as a method in developing practical law or in developing theoretical law.  

The customary land concession in the customary law community was based on Article 18 letter B section (2) the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia & Constitution No. 5 of 1960 concerning Basic Rules of Agrarian Principles (Peraturan Dasar Pokok-Pokok Agraria or UUPA). UUPA is the legal basis for regulating customary land concession in customary law communities, however, there is a blurring of norms in the ATR Minister Regulation / Head of BPN No.18 / 2019 Article 1 number 2 stated customary rights is communal. After tracing it in the UUPA it does not recognize communal rights but is called customary rights, as stated in Article 3 of the UUPA relating to customary rights. This means that there are vague norms. Whereas in principle is based on Article 16 of the UUPA letter h, that is, other rights that are not included in the rights mentioned in UUPA will be determined by the constitution. The mention of communal rights is not mentioned in the UUPA, then by order of the UUPA it should be determined by constitution, but the reality that appears is a ministerial regulation whereas in article 16 of UUPA letter h said that the mandate is stipulated by constitution then it can be called inconsistent. In addition there are inconsistencies in Article 5 section (4) letter c of the Minister of ATR Regulation / Head of BPN No.18 / 2019 which states that the administration of the Customary Land in the Concession Customary Law Communities includes recording in the land register '' if it rests on a higher regulation (lex superior) the laws and regulations referred to namely Government Regulation No. 24 of 1997 concerning Land Registration, in this case communal rights and customary rights are not included in the object of land registration as mentioned in Article 9 Section (1) Government Regulation (PP) No. 24/1997. Minister of ATR Regulation / Head of BPN No.18 / 2019 seems to equate customary rights with communal rights which results in the blurring of norms and inconsistencies that ultimately results in uncertainty in customary land tenure in customary law communities.

The decision of the Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) is the result of the assessment of the Commission Council read out in an open session to the public regarding whether a violation has occurred and the imposition of sanctions or the absence of a violation. The formulation of the KPPU's decision consists of the alleged violation, consideration and assessment of evidence submitted and/or obtained during the trial as well as an analysis of the application of the articles in the Antimonopoly Law which the Reported Party allegedly violated. The KPPU decision is declared to have permanent legal force, if there is no objection from the business actor, and then the KPPU decision must be implemented by the business actor and may be requested for execution at the District Court. Considering the nature and type of KPPU's decisions, when viewed from the types of decisions in civil procedural law, the KPPU's decisions are Condemnatoir decisions, namely decisions that contain punishments and can be implemented. However, the regulations regarding KPPU Decisions that have permanent legal force still do not fulfill the requirements as condemnatoir decisions because KPPU is not a judicial institution and these regulations are still multi-interpretative in nature, namely that legislators do not provide a clear interpretation of the meaning of permanent legal force in KPPU's decisions.

Pembacaan akta oleh notaris merupakan hal yang penting karena banyak kepentingan yang terkait didalamnya. Pembacaan akta dimaksudkan untuk memastikan bahwa akta otentik yang dibuat oleh Notaris sesuai dengan keinginan atau kehendak para penghadap yang membuat akta. Adanya pengecualian dalam pengaturan mengenai pembacaan akta dalam UUJN , dapat dijadikan tameng untuk tidak melakukan pembacaan akta seperti yang diamanatkan dalam Pasal 16 ayat 1 huruf m UUJN. Hal ini tentu saja akan berdampak pada besarnya kemungkinan terjadi konflik hukum diwaktu yang akan datang. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif dengan menggunakan 3 (tiga) pendekatan yaitu pendekatan perundang-undangan, pendekatan konseptual dan pendekatan sejarah. Hasil dari penelitian adalah bahwa Ratio Legis dari pengaturan mengenai Kewajiban Pembacaan Akta yang mewajibkan Notaris untuk membacakan akta didasari pada landasan filosofis dari pembentukan Undang-Undang tersebut, yang secara eksplisit dinyatakan dalam Pasal 3 UUD NRI 1945, bahwa Negara menjamin kepastian dan perlindungan hukum yang berintikan kebenaran dan keadilan terwujud didalam masyarakat. Akan tetapi beragam kepentingan yang melatarbelakangi pembentukan undang-undang mengenai  pengaturan kewajiban pembacaan Akta tersebut, menjadikan peraturan ini tidak konsististen yang berakibat tidak adanya kepastian hukum didalamnya.