Article 16 paragraph (1) point a of the Law on Notary Position (UUJN) mandates that notaries act trustworthily, honestly, thoroughly, independently, impartially, and safeguard the interests of the parties involved in legal acts; however, the principle of freedom of contract in Article 1338 of the Indonesian Civil Code is frequently utilized as the basis for incorporating disclaimer clauses to shift responsibility for material truth. This practice potentially violates the objective requirements of agreements as stipulated in Article 1320 in conjunction with Article 1337 of the Civil Code if used to negate official obligations, thereby impacting the evidentiary strength of authentic deeds as provided in Article 1870 of the Civil Code.

This research aims to analyze the application of the principle of prudence in the inclusion of disclaimer clauses in authentic deeds, and to examine the limits of notary legal liability in the event of legal disputes.

This research is normative legal research employing statutory, conceptual, and case approaches. Primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials were qualitatively analyzed to address the research problems.

The findings reveal that the validity of disclaimer clauses is conditional. Distinct from prior studies that examined the legal standing or implications of exoneration clauses in general terms, this research establishes that the prudence principle functions as a validity test parameter for disclaimer clauses: such clauses are void by law when used to conceal verification negligence or to facilitate deeds that should have been rejected pursuant to Article 16 paragraph (1) point d of the UUJN, yet retain juridical relevance as liability delimiters for notaries who demonstrably complied with prescribed procedures. Across civil, criminal, and administrative regimes, disclaimer clauses confer no absolute immunity; courts will disregard them upon proof of professional negligence.