Anisitus Amanat (Petitioner) listening to the ruling over the material judicial review of Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Notary Public, Wednesday (1/31/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed a material judicial review petition of 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) on Wednesday, January 31, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. The case No. 165/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Anisitus Amanat, a notary. “[The Court] adjudicated, declares the Petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo reading out the verdict.

The Petitioner challenged 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 were 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. He compared this with the absence of age limits for lawyers, doctors, and dentists, which are regulated in Law No. 29 of 2004 on Medical Practice in conjunction with Law No. 17 of 2023 on Health. These professionals are appointed for an indefinite term. He would like the articles he challenged be declared unconstitutional.

In response, the Court considered that the Petitioner had revised the entire substance of the petitum, which was conveyed at the petition revision hearing, not only the technical aspects of the petitum. Upon careful examination of the initial petitum and that after revision, the Court found that both did not follow Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of PMK (Constitutional Court Regulation) No. 2 of 2021.

In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the elaboration of the postita and petitum did not follow PMK No. 2 of 2021: the Petitioner did not explain the contradictions between the norms petitioned for review and the 1945 Constitution. In order for any part of law to be declared not legally binding, it must be proven and declared unconstitutional. Therefore, the Court could not understand what the Petitioner actually wished for. It declared the Petitioner’s petition obscure.

Also read:

Notaries’ Age Limit Questioned

Petitioner Challenging Notary’s Age Limit Revises Argument and Petitum

The Petitioner had also revised the petitum to request that the justices declare Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 2004, as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Notary not legally binding if interpreted as “the notary shall resign or be honorably discharged or be sent into retirement for reaching the age of 65 (sixty-five) years of age and may be extended until 67 (sixty-seven) years of age by considering the health of the notary in question.”

“[I request that the Court] declare a notary may be honorably discharged 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, 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 and/or permanent disability, or have resigned or passed away,” the Petitioner said.

Author       : Fauzan F./L.A.P.
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
Translator  : 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.

---