The Writing of this paper discusses the legal issues concerning the Status Settings Consistency Notary In Dealing Case Relating to Criminal Justice Dialing Notary. The purpose of writing this journal, to find and equalizer settings Notary menganalsis consistency in dealing with cases in the criminal justice with regard to calling a notary pursuant to Article 66 of Law No. 2 of 20014 by the Constitutional Court Decision No. 49 / PUU / X / 2012. The method used in this thesis normative. The approach used is the approach of legislation, Conceptual Approach and Case Approach. The results of this thesis can be explained that setting the calling Notary occur inconsistency (inconsistency) when a Law Enforcement to call to the Notary for the purpose of investigation, prosecution and the judicial process. This is due to the decision of the Constitutional Court requires without the approval of the Regional Supervisory Council, while article 66 of Law No. 2 of 2014 requires approval Honorary Council of Notaries, but until this thesis written yet been established. This is called a legal vacuum. Furthermore, the implications if there is disharmony with the article 66 of the Constitutional Court's decision is certainly in the implementation of the law enforcement agencies will have a difference in interpretation of the order of article 66 of Law No. 2 of 2014.