Systematic, sporadic, learning components, comprehensibility, linguistic stimulus, learning process.    

Court decisions related to PPAT as co-defendants are the Siak Sri Indrapura District Court Decision Number 28/Pdt.G/2017/PN Sak, and Court Decision Number 104/Pdt.G./2012/PN. Cbn. In both cases, PPAT was alleged to have committed an act that was contrary to the procedures and provisions in making the deed, fulfilling the elements of an unlawful act as normalized in Article 1365 of the Civil Code. The study analyzes three legal issues, including whether the official making the land deed is also responsible for the legally flawed deed that has been made; what is the form of accountability that follows the official making the land deed to the legal defect status of the deed made; and how the concept of future arrangements for land deed officials as co-defendants for legally flawed deeds. The normative juridical research method uses three approaches, namely the law approach, the conceptual approach and the case approach. The results of the discussion of this study, namely: The responsibility of the official making the land deed for the legal defect deed he has made. Accountability in the realm of civil law with indicators that have fulfilled the elements of unlawful acts as regulated in Article 1365 of the Civil Code. The form of PPAT’s accountability for the legal defect status of the deed made is in the form of administrative sanctions and civil sanctions. The concept of future regulation of PPAT as partly responsible for a legally flawed deed is that there is a clear arrangement regarding the material and formal requirements for making a deed. In addition, it is necessary to regulate the concept of giving concrete and specific sanctions for PPAT to minimize the occurrence of professional abuse that has been imposed on the official.