---

The government, represented by the Director of Litigation of Legislations Ninik Hariwanti, would submit a response to the petition for judicial review of the Law on the Office of Notary Public on Monday (28/8) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by PR/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) held a follow-up hearing on the case No. 43/PUU-XV/2017 to hear the statement of the President, the House of Representatives, and the Indonesian Notary Association (INI) as Relevant Party in the judicial review of Law Number 2 Year 2014 on the amendment of Law Number 30 Year 2004 on the Office of Notary Public (Notary Law), Monday (28/8).

In its statement, the government represented by the Director of Litigation of Legislations Ninik Hariwanti expressed several things in response to the petitum filed by Donaldy Christian Langgar. "In relation to the petitum filed by the Petitioners that Article 17 paragraph (1) letter a of the Notary Law being considered contrary to the 1945 Constitution, according to the Government, it is a constitutional complain. Thus, this is not the authority of the Constitutional Court," said Ninik before the Panel of Judges.

Furthermore, Ninik also rejected the Petitioner’s legal standing, which states that the Petitioner’s constitutional rights have been violated due to the enactment of the norm. She asserted that the government did not see any damage to his constitutional rights as claimed, whether specific, actual, or potential.

"The government sees this as the Petitioner’s option to choose a notary. Thus, there is no damages and no proposition that reinforces the enactment of the a quo article. Therefore, there is no causal relationship between the point of reference with the provisions of the article being reviewed, so the Petitioner does not have legal standing, "he asserted.

Furthermore, Ninik also asserted that from the explanation in the petition, the government deemed the materials of the petition unclear. In addition, rather, the Petitioner explained more concrete matters. In other words, the government considered the posita and petitum unrelated.

With regard to the scope of notary jurisdiction, the government in its statement stated that the notary public has an obligation to explain about the access of the rules for signing a deed filed by the public. Article 17 Paragraph (1) letter a of the Notary Law is a norm containing prohibitions to prevent unhealthy competition between notaries public.

"Through the norm, notaries public are given an office area or area of ​​competence. It is also to guarantee the notary’s services can be provided for and accepted by all citizens who are in the office area, in order to avoid unhealthy competition among notaries," said Ninik.

The Indonesian Notary Association (INI), represented by Taufik, said that [INI] had not been able to give any information in order to respond to the matter which was alleged by the Petitioner. "We have not been able to provide information related to the case filed by the Petitioner. However, in this case, we agree with the government’s statement. Thus, we asked to be given an opportunity to elaborate in the next trial," explained Taufik.

At the end of the hearing, Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Arief Hidayat asked the Petitioner, the government, the Relevant Parties, and the House of Representatives who could not attend, to deliver their conclusions on Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 11.00 am to the Court Registrar.

(Sri Pujianti/lul/Yuniar Widiastuti)

---