Kasus ini membahas tentang Keberpihakan Notaris Dalam Pembuatan Akta Jual Beli Berdasarkan Prespektif Undang-Undang Jabatan Notaris dan Kode Etik Notaris. Kasus keberpihakan terhadap salah satu pihak dalam pengurusan pembuatan akta transaksi jual beli tanah dan bangunan secara kredit pemilikan rumah (KPR) sehingga terdapat salah satu pihak dirugikan sehingga timbul permasalahan Apakah Notaris berwenang dalam pembuatan akta jual beli? Bagaimana tanggungjawab Notaris atas keberpihakan yang menimbulkan kerugian bagi penjual dalam kasus Putusan Majelis Pengawas Notaris Nomor: 04/B/MPPN/VIII/2016? Berdasarkan hasil analisis bahwa Notaris tidak berwenang membuat akta jual beli, karena merupakan kewenangan PPAT. Apabila dikaitkan kasus di atas, EJ membuat AJB dalam jabatannya sebagai PPAT bukan sebagai Notaris. Notaris bertanggung jawab secara pribadi atas pelaksanaan tugas dan jabatannya dalam setiap pembuatan akta. Berdasarkan pertimbangan putusan Majelis Pengawas Pusat Notaris, bahwa EJ telah bertindak tidak cermat, berpihak dan tidak menjaga kepentingan pihak yang berkaitan dengan perbuatan hukum sehingga EJ dinilai telah melanggar Pasal 16 Ayat (1) UUJN dan melanggar Pasal 54 ayat (1) UUJN karena EJ tidak menyimpan salinan akta yang diminta oleh penjual. Putusan Majelis Pengawas Notaris Pusat telah sesuai dengan ketentuan UUJN, namun sanksi yang diberikan EJ dinilai terlalu ringan sehingga tidak memberikan efek jera mengingat banyaknya pelangaran- pelanggaran yang dilakukan / This case discusses the Notary Alignment in the Making Purchase Deed Based on the Perspective of the Notary Position Law and Notary Ethics Code. The case of partiality towards one of the parties in the management of the sale and purchase of land and building transactions on a housing loan (KPR) so that there is one party injured so that problems arise Is the Notary authorized to make the sale and purchase deed? What is the responsibility of the Notary for the partisanship that causes loss to the seller in the case of Notary Supervisory Board Decision Number: 04 / B / MPPN / VIII / 2016? Based on the results of the analysis that the Notary is not authorized to make a sale and purchase deed, because it is the authority of PPAT. If related to the case above, EJ makes AJB in his position as PPAT not as a Notary. The notary is personally responsible for carrying out his duties and positions in each deed making. Based on the consideration of the decision of the Notary Central Supervisory Board, that EJ has acted inaccurately, partially and did not safeguard the interests of parties related to legal actions so that EJ was considered to have violated Article 16 Paragraph (1) of the Law and was violated Article 54 paragraph (1) of the Law because the EJ was not keep a copy of the deed requested by the seller. The decision of the Central Notary Supervisory Board is in accordance with the provisions of UUJN, but the sanctions given by EJ are considered too light so that they do not provide a deterrent effect given the large number of violations committed