---

The Petitioners’ attorney Hasbullah delivering the subjects of the petition in the judicial review hearing of the Notary Law, Monday (11/5) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) held a judicial review hearing of Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Profession on Monday afternoon (11/5/2020). Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the Constitutional Court (MK) held the hearing in compliance with health protocols set by the Health Ministry and the WHO. The Court heard the revision of the petition filed by the Indonesia Prosecutors Association (PJI), represented by PJI Chairman Setia Untung Arimuladi and four other petitioners.

“Before starting the session, we, the panel of justices, would like to make an announcement that the [litigating] parties can use the online courtroom facilities from their respective residences by utilizing the technology [provided] by the Constitutional Court. In order to be able to use the online courtroom facilities, the parties are to request the Court to use the online courtroom facilities two days before the hearing by notifying their locations and the instruments that they have. The [software] used by the Constitutional Court are Cloudx and Zoom,” said Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams as the panel chairman when opening the session, along with Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Suhartoyo (panel members).

In the hearing for case No. 16/PUU-XVIII/2020, the Petitioners’ attorney Hasbullah and two other attorneys were present. “We would like to first [convey] the revision on page 16 by adding that based on Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a of the Indonesia Prosecutors Association’s statute/bylaws, the central coordinating executive represents PJI internally and externally and is responsible to the national meeting,” Hasbullah said.

The next revision is that based on Article 6 paragraph (1) letter a of PJI’s statute/bylaws, the chairman is the highest leader of the organization and may be reelected. Therefore, PJI’s chairman can represent PJI to file a judicial review petition to the Constitutional Court. “That’s the additions regarding the Petitioners’ legal standing,” Hasbullah explained.

On page 22 regarding three differences between a past Constitutional Court Decision and the current petition, “We now [would like to] include five differences,” he said.

The Petitioners review Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Notary Law that reads, “For the purposes of judicial proceedings, investigators, prosecutors, or judges with the approval of the competent notary ethics council, a notary may: a. take a photocopy of notary deed and/or letters attached to the notary deed or in the notary protocol kept by the notary; and b. summon a notary to be present in the examination relating to the notary deed or notary protocol that are in the hands of the notary.”

The Petitioners argue that the a quo petition is not ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) with the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 72/PUU-XII/2014 and 22/PUU-XVII/2019 due to difference of legal standing, touchstone, and juridical argument. They argue that the phrase ‘with the approval of the notary ethics council’ in Article 66 of the Notary Law has led to the notary ethics council having absolute and final authority to approve or disapprove the summons of a notary to be present in the examination of a case. This causes investigators, prosecutors, and judges unable to pursue further legal remedies.

Losses due to a quo article were actually experienced by Petitioner II as the prosecutor in charge of handling the case of the Criminal Act of Giving False Information into an Authentic Deed, which started with a police report to investigators No. LP/508/IV/2018/Bareskrim on April 16, 2018. Following the report, the investigators issued an Investigation Order No. SP.Dik/266/V/RES.2.4/ 2018/Dit.Tipidsus on May 15, 2018 and sent a Letter of Notice of Commencement of Investigator (SPDP) No. R/91/V/RES.2.4/2018/Dit.Tipideksus dated May 15, 2018 to the Deputy Attorney General for General Crimes. 

Then in the investigation process, the National Police\'s Criminal Investigation Department (Bareskrim) sent a letter to the Chairperson of the Notary Ethics Council of West Java Province No. B/1044/V/Res.2.4/2019/Dit.Tipideksus dated May 3, 2019, which in essence requested approval to examine notary public Patricia Tirta Isoliani Ginting. The Notary Ethics Council responded that they had not been able to approve the request. Until today, the investigation has been delayed and harmed or potentially will harm prosecutors and the public. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

Translation uploaded on 05/13/2020

---