PPAT is a public official who is given the authority to make deeds as evidence that certain legal actions regarding land rights have been carried out in court. One type of deed made before the PPAT is the deed of sale and purchase (AJB). AJB made before PPAT is a formulation of the will of the parties contained in it. The notary is required to be responsible for the deed he has made, sometimes the deed made before the notary contains false information, fraud and even untruth and is often subject to Articles 263, 264, and 266 in conjunction with Article 55 of the Criminal Code. However, if it is found that there are violations committed by PPAT criminally, criminal sanctions can be imposed according to the Criminal Code. This research was conducted through a normative juridical approach, namely an approach to problems formulated by studying the provisions of laws and regulations relating to problems and comparing them with the application of laws and regulations. Data analysis was carried out by collecting primary and secondary data. Data analysis was evaluated qualitatively using interpretation and legal logic so as to obtain or strengthen an existing picture to answer problems based on laws and regulations using a deductive method. The results of this study indicate that the legal implications of falsifying authentic data on sale and purchase deeds made by PPAT are that the deed only has legal force as an underhand deed and the authentic deed can be canceled if the party claiming can prove it in court in court. The responsibility of PPAT who commits falsification of authentic data in making a deed of sale and purchase, can be held accountable before the law because his actions cause harm to others. In this case the forgery of the deed committed by the PPAT/Notary San Smith in a criminal manner, criminal sanctions can be imposed in accordance with the Criminal Code (KUHP), namely Article 266 Paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 55 Paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code with threats participated in entering false information and there were losses resulting from a forged deed, so that PPAT San Smith was sentenced to 1 year in prison in the Medan District Court Decision No. 3036/Pid.B/2009/PN.Mdn. Efforts are being made to overcome the problem of falsifying authentic data on the sale and purchase deeds made by PPAT, namely providing legal protection with the following steps: (a) formulating specific rules regarding the limitations of notary criminal liability in UUJN.

This writing aims to determine the process of dividing the inheritance of land rights by a notary and theoretical analysis of the role of a notary in making a deed of inheritance of land rights. The role of a Notary in the transfer of land rights based on inheritance is very large, where every transfer of land rights must be proven by a deed made by and before a Notary so that the deed he makes has binding legal force. The researcher used a legal research method with a normative juridical approach, the research specifications used were descriptive analysis, the data source came from secondary data. Methods of data collection were conducted through interviews, library research, and document studies. This writing was analyzed qualitatively by using the analytical knife of legal certainty theory and Islamic justice theory. The results showed that the process of distributing inheritance rights to land carried out by a Notary, namely the parties (heirs) together faced the Notary in the presence of 2 (two) witnesses. Both parties bring the files that are the formal requirements and the material requirements that have been determined. Theoretical analysis of the role of the notary in making the deed of distribution of inheritance rights to land is carried out with justice, so it is fair not justice. This is similar to Islamic justice theory. Basically the concept of justice in Islam is not "equality" but "comparability".

The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of a notary in registering applications for land rights over management rights. To analyze the process of determining land rights over management rights.The method used by the researcher isNormative JurisdictionandThe specifications in this study include descriptive analysis.The sources and types of data in this study are secondary data obtained from library studies. Based on the results of the study thatThe Role of Notaries in Application for Land Rights Above Management Rightsare: a. As a Consultant who provides legal counseling to clients; b. As an Authorized Person entrusted by his client for his competence and expertise.The process of determining land rights over management rights in the conception of legal certainty through procedures and complete requirements, namely a certificate of building use rights that is requested to be converted into a right of ownership, a deed of sale and purchase or a letter of acquisition regarding the land and the house in question, a letter of approval from the holder Mortgage Rights (if the land is encumbered with Mortgage Rights), Applicant's Identity Card, and Letter of Recommendation from Perum Perumnas. The granting or stipulation of land rights included in any settlement of land issues is intended as an effort to provide legal certainty guarantees for the holders of the rights.

The Covid-19 pandemic has occurred since the beginning of 2020 which has had an impact on various sectors of human life, both health, social and economic. One of the sectors most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic is banking due to the large number of non-performing loans during the pandemic. Based on this situation, the government issued Presidential Decree no. 12 of 2020 concerning the Determination of Non-Natural Disasters for the spread of covid-19. Based on this background, the problems in this study will raise the juridical study of whether the covid-19 pandemic can be said to be force majeure and its juridical implications in bank credit agreements. The purpose of this study is to find out the juridical basis of whether COVID-19 can be used as an excuse for force majeure in bank credit agreements. The research method used is empirical normative with primary data sources through interviews at Bank Jateng and secondary data in the form of legal materials. Data collection techniques with interviews and literature study. The results of the study show that the Covid-19 pandemic, although as a non-natural disaster that meets the force majeure clause, does not necessarily become a reason for canceling the debtor's obligations in the credit agreement because it is not mentioned in the agreement regarding the Covid-19 pandemic condition and also the condition of the Covid-19 pandemic is a force.

The existence of Articles 55 and 56 of Act No. 37 of 2004 concerning Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations, the position of debtor protection in the implementation of bankruptcy carried out by separatist creditors against creditors is weak. This is due to the absence of legal remedies that can be taken by debtors during bankruptcy has been found to have happened to him. Therefore, it is necessary to have a disposition of justice in protecting debtors from the rights of separatist creditors. The implementation of bankruptcy as referred to in Article 55 and Article 56 of Act No. 37 of 2004 has not been fair to the debtor, considering that the two articles are only based on the existence of debt from the debtor and are related to the position of solvent or insolvency based on the creditor's view. This is clearly the case because Act No. 37 of 2004 does not adhere to a balance sheet test system where before being declared bankrupt, it is necessary to test the condition of the debtor whether it is really insolvent or actually still solvent. 2) The factors that have resulted in bankruptcy law so far have not been fair to debtors are legal factors, namely in the form of the provisions of Article 55 and Article 56 of Act No. 37 of 2004 which are unfair to debtors. The law even though is widely known that the door to justice in bankruptcy cases is the judge's decision. 3) It is necessary to reconstruct Article 55 and Article 56 of Act No. 37 of 2004. So that the provisions of Article 55 and Article 56 of Act No. 37 of 2004 read: Article 55 of Act No. 37 of 2004: 1) Due to observance of the provisions as referred to in Article 56, Article 57, and Article 58, each Creditor holding a lien, fiduciary guarantee, mortgage, mortgage, or other collateral right, may exercise his rights as if there had been no bankruptcy.