Petitioner Anisitus Amanat, a notary in Kendal, Central Java challenging Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Notary Public, Wednesday, (12/20/2023). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The provisions regarding the notaries’ age limit in Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Profession (Notary Law) is being materially challenged in the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 165/PUU-XXI/2023 took place on Wednesday, December 20, 2023, in the plenary courtroom. The case was filed by Anisitus Amanat, a notary in Kendal Regency, Central Java Province.
The Petitioner challenges Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b, Article 8 paragraph (2), Article 13, and Article 82 paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the Notary Law. He alleged these articles are contrary to Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution due to the age limit for the notary, which is 65 years old and 67 years old after extension. The Petitioner compares this with the absence of age limits for lawyers, doctors, and dentists, which are regulated in Law No. 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice juncto Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health. These professionals are appointed for an indefinite term.
“I object to the notary’s retirement [age limit] because during and after retirement, we (notaries) do not receive a salary from the state, unlike other professions such as lawyers, doctors, and others who are appointed for life. Therefore, I question why we notaries are not paid by the state even though we work for the state; we get no pension after retirement. We do not have equality before the law,” said the notary who was born in West Manggarai.
He argues that the provision in Article 13 of the Notary Law is unfair to notaries. It states that a notary shall be dismissed dishonorably by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights if they are sentenced to imprisonment based on a court decision that is legally binding for committing a crime punishable by imprisonment for 5 (five) years or more. He considers this provision unjust and a violation of human rights because notaries who have been convicted by a court are also punished by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights.
“I request [the provision] be reviewed because, after notaries are convicted and sentenced by the Court, the Minister of Law and Human Rights also dismisses them dishonorably with certain conditions. There is no legal protection indefinitely for notaries who have completed their criminal sentences. Therefore, I request that honorable or dishonorable dismissals be based on court decisions that have obtained legal force,” the Petitioner explained before the panel of justices led by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.
In addition, he also challenges the provision on the organization of notaries as regulated in Article 82, paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the Notary Law, which he believes has caused disputes and disagreements related to the management of the organization at the central level of the Indonesian Notary Association (INI).
“By law, our organization is a single entity, that is, the Indonesian Notary Association (INI). However, there is currently a conflict among the management, which has led the Ministry of Law and Human Rights to refuse its registration. Therefore, until now we don’t have a central organization. With all due respect, Your Honors, we hope that there can be more than one notary organization,” he said.
In his petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare a notary can be honorably dismissed from their job if the results of a medical examination proves that they have hearing impairments that requires consultation with the public before drafting deed documents, where there are visual and speech impairments that may hinder reading deeds, physical impairments in the hands that may impair writing and/or signing deeds, physical ailments due to illness or advanced age that may hinder commuting to and from the office, and mental health issues due to stress or insanity.
“I request that the Court declare that there can be more than one organization for Indonesian notaries, and member of the Indonesian Notary Association can only be honorably or dishonorably dismissed from the job based on a court decision that has legal force,” the Petitioner emphasized.
Justices’ Advice
In response to the Petitioner’s petition, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah gave advice to revise the petition. He highlighted that the Petitioner needed to revise his argument about the reason for more than one notary organization. He also emphasized the need to observe Constitutional Court Decision No. 52/PUU-VIII/2010, as the articles being challenged and the touchstones are similar, as well as the procedure for submitting a petition to the Court based on the Court’s Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021.
“Mr. Anis’ argument has actually already been part of the Court’s considerations, but I suggest revisiting Constitutional Court Decision No. 52/PUU-VIII/2010 for further study. Regarding the format and structure [of the petition], please follow PMK No. 2 of 2021. By following the guidelines, your petition will be more complete, because Mr. Anis, as a law graduate and an experienced notary, you have a high level of expertise, which can be demonstrated in this petition,” Justice Guntur emphasized.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur highlighted that the format used by the Petitioner is not suitable for a judicial review petition, as it resembles one in general courts. “It seems that you are more accustomed to litigating in general courts, which is why the format resembles that of a general court petition. If you want to challenge something, you need to adhere to the provisions and format accordingly. I urge you to take the petition more seriously and make the necessary revisions,” he emphasized.
Panel chair Justice Daniel P. Foekh advised the Petitioner to emphasis the material review in the arguments. “Mr. Anis needs to pay attention here to articulate material losses, which differ from constitutional losses. Furthermore, the material review should specify the relevant articles and state the Notary Law against the 1945 Constitution,” he explained.
The justices gave the Petitioner 14 days to revise the petition. The revised hardcopy and softcopy files of the petition should be submitted to the Court no later than Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 09:00 WIB. The next agenda will be the petition revision hearing.
Author : Fauzan F./L.A.P.
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR : Andhini S.F.
Translator : Najwa Afifah Lukman/Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.
Wednesday, December 20, 2023 | 15:53 WIB 253