Twenty-two notaries challenging the age limit for the notary in Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Public as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 with their legal counsels, Monday (2/26/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another judicial review hearing of 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) on Monday, February 26, 2024 in the plenary courtroom. The petition No. 14/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by twenty-two notaries.

Through Saiful Anam, the Petitioners stated that the petition had been revised with additional petitioners, as mentioned in pages eight and nine of the petition. “We added two petitioners by the name of Pinarti Johanna and Lieke Lianadevi Tukgali, retired notaries,” he revealed.

He added that point four on the Court’s authority, which was redundant, had been removed. “Of the eight touchstones we focus on four: Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (1), and Article 28I paragraph (2). Then, in accordance with the Court’s suggestion during the preliminary hearing, we have also explored and compared previous decisions, namely Cases 52 and 165 on page 16,” he said before Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat and the panel’s members.

Also read: Provision on Notary’s Age Limit Challenged Again

The Petitioners allege 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.

They assert that they 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.

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.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fauzan Febriyan
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.

---