---

Donaldy Christian Langgar as Principal Petitioner when delivering the subject of the petition for judicial review of Notary Law on Thursday (3/8) in Plenary Session Room of Constitutional Court Building. Photo PR / Febian.

The Constitutional Court held a preliminary hearing on the judicial review of Law Number 2 Year 2014 on the amendment to Law Number 30 Year 2004 on the Office of Notary Public on Article 17 Paragraph (1) letter a (Notary Public Law) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court on Thursday (3/8). The case No. 43/PUU-XV/2017 was filed by Donaldy Christian Langgar as individual Indonesian citizen.

In the principal issue of his petition, the Petitioner considers that the Notary Public Law is not effective so that the Petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated in notarizing authentic deeds. The Petitioner claimed that the office of notary public disregarded the threat of legal sanction in case of unlawful acts outside his domicile and that his prohibition statement on the Notary Public Law was disregarded by the notary in question.

In his statement before the Court, the Petitioner, who own lands with certification Numbers 24.08.19.02.1.00851 and 24.08.19.1.00852 that were published in the Office of Land Agency (BPN) of Ende Regency, NTT, questioned the Notary Public Law on the phrase \\'... his/her office area.’ According to him, the phrase was not in accordance with the notary’s office area at the time the authority was implemented, so that the law was not effective and had double meanings.

"The Petitioner felt strange about the notarizing of letters of grant and power of attorney at the notary office in Surabaya. There was no certificate checking, while the intended land is located in Ende Regency. However, the notary did not notify the Petitioner of their office area, so according to the Petitioner he has been a victim," Donaldy explained before the Panel of Justices led by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati.

Judges’ Advice

In response to the Petitioner\\'s report, Constitutional Justice Maria also gave suggestions for improving the petition, among others on the format of the petition and petitum. In addition, Maria also stressed the need for the Petitioner to explore norms that were claimed to be contradictory to the 1945 Constitution.

"The case that you experienced is actually a concrete issue because it is related to the right to land and grant, which was requested to be recorded by the notary. However, the implied constitutional rights that are violated must have a correlation," said Maria.

In addition, Maria also asserted that the article being reviewed had no reference, so it was still limited to implementation of an article. Therefore, she expected that the Petitioner study similar cases that had been submitted to the Constitutional Court in order to make improvements.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul highlighted the correlation between the article being reviewed and the Petitioner’s constitutional rights that are directly violated due to enactment of the article. "I’d like to emphasize that this case is actually a concrete case, which means that you have a case. But how do you relate to the article [being reviewed] directly?" asked Manahan.

Constitutional Justice Aswanto also gave advice regarding the Petitioner’s affirmation in submitting the petition’s material. "You have to make revisions based on all the advice so that everything is in accordance with the provisions of the law procedures, on the format and especially the elaboration of the petition’s material," he explained.

The Constitutional Court gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition until Wednesday 16 August at 08.00 WIB. The next agenda of the hearing is the revision of the petition.

(Trisia Margareta/Sri Pujianti/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---