Goals to be achieved in this journal to describe implications of juridical inconsistency of article 43 of Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Amendment of Act No. 30 of 2004 concerning Notary of the provisions of Article 31 paragraph (1) of Law Number 24 Year 2009 on the flag, language, and the state emblem and anthem.Method used to answer problems in this journal is the approach of legislation (statute approach), case approach and conceptual approach . Legislation Approach Method (statute approach) is an approach used to examine and analyze all legislation and regulation that has to do with the legal issues are being addressed. In this study legislation relating to the use of a foreign language in the agreement (deed). Conclusions from the study: a) Inconsistence in article 43 of 2014 law no. 2 about change on 2004 law no. 30 on notary position occurs in verse 1 with verse 3 and verse 4, because in verse 1, it has firmly stated that document is obligated to be made in Indonesian while in verse 3 and verse 4 while in verse 3 and verse 4 gives give opportunity to parties to make document in foreign language if the party allowed and notary is only translating it into Indonesian and there is no need to make document in Indonesian. b) Juridical implication of inconsistency on article 43 of 2014 law no. 2 on the change of 2004 law no. 30 on notary position can cause document made by notary (authentic document) but it is made in foreign language and or had been translated into Indonesia canceled for the law because the authentic document is national document (archive) that it is obligated to be made or using Indonesian as stated in article 43 of 2014 law no. 2 on the change of 2004 law no. 30 on notary position and article 31 of 2009 law no. 24 on flag, language, and national symbol also national anthem.