Principal Petitioner Guntoro in the ruling hearing of the judicial review of Judicial Power Law, Monday (20/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court ruled that the judicial review petition of Article 24 of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power and Article 66 paragraphs (1) and (4), Article 75 letter a, and Article 79 of Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Office of Notary Public cannot be accepted and rejected in its entirety. The decision No. 22/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out by Chief Justice Anwar Usman on Monday afternoon (20/5/2019).

The petition No. 22/PUU-XVII/2019 was filed by Guntoro. He claimed constitutional impairment due to the enactment of Article 24 of the Judicial Power Law because the article is limited by a regulation under the law that is in effect starting from April 20, 2016. As a result of the restriction, the Petitioner could not submit a judicial review according to Article 24 of the Judicial Power Law, even though there has been a pretrial ruling that deviates fundamentally and violates the fair trial principle. According to the Petitioner, this has resulted in a constitutional loss that affects not only the Petitioner; all citizens are also disadvantaged in terms of the right to security, peace, and order.

According to the Petitioner, the revised Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law No. 2 of 2014 is unconstitutional because it only changed the phrase “District/Municipal Supervisory Council” to “notary honorary council.” It further restricts investigators, general prosecutors, or judges in areas outside of the provinces capitals. MKNs are only located in provinces capitals, aside from the state capital. In fact, aside from not willing to issue notary approval, MKN delegates it to the Central Notary Supervisory Council (MPPN) when in fact the MPPN chairperson did not take a concrete move on West Java MPW that did not make a decision despite having held an ethics hearing on June 5, 2018. The West Java MPW secretary handed the matter over to the KPK due to the capture of the Head of Sukamiskin Penitentiary that led to the dismissal of West Java Chairperson cum Head of West Java Regional Office.

In the legal considerations read out by Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul, the Court found no reason specifically regarding the petitum. In this case, the Petitioner did not elaborate on the reasons why he considered Article 75 letter a and Article 79 of the Notary Public Law unconstitutional. Thus, the Court could not find any connection between the reasons for the petition (posita) and the matters that the Petitioner had requested to the Court (petitum).

"Based on the elaboration, it was clear to the Court that the Petitioner could not explain the reasons why Article 75 letter a and Article 79 of the Notary Public Law are in conflict with the 1945 Constitution, so the Petitioner\'s explanation of the reason for the judicial review of the a quo norm is obscure,” Justice Manahan explained.

On the Petitioner’s argument that Article 66 paragraph (4) of the Notary Public Law is redundant, because the Petitioner considered it substantially the same as Article 66 paragraph (3), the Court deems it inaccurate. According to the Court, Article 66 paragraph (4) of the Notary Public Law actually confirms that the Constitutional Court cannot restrict the authority of investigators, public prosecutors, or judges from exercising their authorities in the interests of the judicial process as stipulated in Article 66 paragraph (1) of Notary Public Law. "Moreover, the provision of the a quo article is intended to provide protection to notaries as public officials in carrying out their duties, especially protecting minutes as confidential state documents," Justice Manahan said.

The Court believes that Article 66 paragraph (4) of the Notary Public Law is essential in creating fair legal certainty towards the MKN\'s authority in providing approval for investigators, public prosecutors, and judges in summoning notaries or examining other documents for judicial purposes as referred to in Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Notary Public Law. "Based on these considerations, the Petitioner’s argument regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 66 paragraph (1) and paragraph (4) of the Notary Public Law is legally groundless," he said. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)