A provision on the age limit for the notary in Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Public as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 being challenged in the Constitutional Court, Monday (2/12/2024). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — A provision on the age limit for the notary in Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Profession Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2004 (Notary Law) is challenged once again. Twenty-two notaries are the petitioners in case No. 14/PUU-XXII/2024.
At the preliminary hearing on Monday, February 12, 2024, the Petitioners represented by Saiful Anam alleged that the retirement age of the notary at 65 years of age could potentially cause state losses since they are forced to retire at 65 and lose their source of income. They believe this would make these retired notaries a burden for their families and for the state, which has to provide assistance, protection, and decent living for them.
Saiful added that the Petitioners have been harmed by the enforcement of Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Notary Law, which stipulates that the retirement age limit can be extended until 67 with health as consideration. The norm has led to legal uncertainty. They argue that Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b stipulates that the notary shall resign or be honorably discharged for reaching the age of 65. However, Article 8 paragraph (2) extends this age limit to 67 by considering the health of the notary. As such, these norms are in conflict with one another.
“Chronological and biological ages might be different. Chronological age is the number of years lived, while biological age refers to the age of cells and tissues based on physiological evidence. In many studies, it is predicted that health is not measured by age. To determine biological age requires medical tests for telomere length and biomarkers of DNA methylation, which is the process of DNA changes throughout life. Unlike chronological age, your biological age can be changed. Things like diet, exercise, stress levels, sleep quality, and smoking can affect your biological age, and changing habits can make a big difference. For this reason, it is not possible to determine a person’s health by age alone, but it requires a medical examination of the person concerned,” Saiful explained.
Saiful also emphasized that chronological age cannot be a benchmark for the age limit of notaries. However, another scientific benchmark is needed, i.e. health. Thus, it is clear that the retirement age of notaries should not be limited; only their health for practice in the field is needed. This is certainly in line with the principles contained in Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28, Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28H paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
Pursuant to Law No. 11 of 1969 on Pension for the State Civil Apparatus and Their Widow/Widower and Law No. 5 of 2014 on the State Civil Apparatus, although notaries are public officials, they do not receive pension, unlike state officials, civil servants (PNS), military (TNI) soldiers, and members of the state police.
“Therefore, since notaries do not receive pension and state finance, they should be given more leeway to practice their profession by not restricting them in terms of age, as long as they are physically and mentally capable of carrying out their profession,” Saiful explained.
The Petitioners believes that notaries whose tenure has ended must be responsible for the deeds they have made, pursuant to the elucidation to Article 65 of the Notary Law, despite not having legal protection. The Law does not specifically regulate legal protection for retired notaries, thus creating a legal vacuum. With that argument, the Petitioners allege that Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Notary Law are in violation of Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28, Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28H paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.
“Therefore, the Petitioners appeal to the Excellencies Constitutional Justices who examine and adjudicate the case to declare Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Notary Law are in violation of Article 27 paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28, Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28H paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution and thus not legally binding,” Saiful emphasized while reading the petitum.
Justices’ Advice
In response, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur asked the Petitioners to elaborate the touchstones and background of the petition. “The touchstones, the background, etc. should be elaborated more. The Petitioners’ legal standing is actually interesting. Their qualifications and the parameter for the constitutional impairment should be explained,” he explained.
Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani made a similar comment. He advised the Petitioners to elaborate their petition more to convince the constitutional justices. “So that we will be convinced to rule [on the case]. The panel will report [the case] to the plenary [meeting], consisting of all the constitutional justices,” he said.
The panel of justices announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petition and submit it by Monday, February 26, 2024 at 09:00 WIB.
Author : Utami Argawati
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.
Monday, February 12, 2024 | 16:30 WIB 318