Law Number 30 Year 2004 concerning Notary reviewed materially to the Constitutional Court (MK) on Tuesday (4/2) at the Plenary Court. Case registered with the Registrar of the Court Number 5/PUU-XIII/2014 was filed by Muhammad Thoha.

In the main petition , the Petitioner ‘s attorney present without explaining their constitutional rights violated by the enactment of Article 15 paragraph ( 2 ) letter f, Article 21 in conjunction with Article 22 paragraph ( 2 ) of Law Notary . Article 15 paragraph (2) f of the Act reads Notary " Notary authorized anyway:f. make a deed relating to land “. While Article 21 of the Law on Notary mentions “the Minister is authorized to determine Notary Formation in the area referred to in Article 18 paragraph ( 1 ) to consider the proposal of Notary Organization . While Article 22 states " Further provisions on the formation Notary referred to in paragraph (1) Regulation of the Minister ".

Thoha explained he had passed the selection test appointment of a Land Deed Official Decree of 2012 by the National Land Agency Number 912/KEP-17.3/XI/2013 dated 20 November 2013. However, when the application for the appointment of a notary public official who proposes it rejected directly by the Customer Service Officer Director General of General Law Administration of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights on the grounds limited formation. In fact, according to the Petitioner, in Section 3 of the Act does not mention that the formation of a notary office is an absolute requirement for the major and whether or not a person can be appointed as a notary. "On this decision, when I would ask, but why the formation is limited. Why notarized petition was rejected for reasons of lack of formation? Though the office of notary public is not limited in number," he said.
In addition, the lack of openness of information Thoha describes conditions for the recruitment and appointment of notaries on the one hand, can lead to legal insecurity. The big difference in the interpretation of Article 15 paragraph (2) of Law Notary cause legal uncertainty over the authority of the notary office in charge. "In addition, this creates dualism and the presence of a notary public official PPAT. It would be better if these two positions together," he said.

On the basis of these reasons , the Applicant requested the bill be canceled so that no binding legal effect to the extent not construed the authority of the notary public officials to embrace the duties and authority of the office of a public official land deed officials ( PPAT ) in carrying out most activities by making land registration deed as evidence he had done legal acts , which are as follows : a) Sale and purchase , b ) exchange Mat c ) Grant d ) Entered into the company ( inbreng ) ; e ) Distribution rights with f ) Provision Broking / rights use of land Freehold ; g ) Providing Mortgage and h ) The authorization charge Mortgage .

Judge advice

In response to the petition, the Constitutional Court, led by Ahmad FadlilSumadi, accompanied by Judge Maria Farida Indrati and Patrialis to suggest improvements to the Applicant. Maria explained that the applicant over a constitutional petition outlining losses. According to him, the reason for the petition is more relevant in the case of concrete, not the constitutionality of the norm. "It should be known by the applicant, that the Constitutional Court reviews the constitutionality of the norm, not the concrete case. Then, the relationship must be explained in the articles of the Law office of Notary hurt you with a touchstone of 1945 you asked,"he advised.
Constitutional Assembly provides 14 days to the applicant to correct the petition. The next trial would be examining the revision of petition. ( LuluAnjarsari / mh )