The Petitioner’s legal counsels taking photos before a judicial review hearing of the Notary Law, Wednesday (7/10/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Public as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2004 (Notary Law) on Wednesday, July 10, 2024. The petition No. 14/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by twenty-two notaries.

The hearing had been scheduled for the testimonies of the Government and the House of Representatives (DPR). However, the House was indisposed while the Government had asked that the hearing be delayed to allow for more tie to draft and finalize its testimony.

“So, as was stated by the Registrar’s Office, the Government or the President, who should have given their testimonies today are not ready, is this accurate?” Chief Justice Suhartoyo (plenary chair) asked.

In response to the plenary chair, Purwoko from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights said on behalf of the Government that it was no prepared, and asked for a delay. The Court gave them until Thursday, July 18, 2024 at 13:30 WIB.

Also read:

Provision on Notary’s Age Limit Challenged Again

Case of Notary’s Age Limit Gets More Petitioners

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 believe 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 constitutional justices 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.

Author              : Utami Argawati
Editor               : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                   : Tiara Agustina
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.

---