Minister of Law and Human Rights’s advisor on economy testifying on behalf of the Government at a material judicial review hearing of the Notary Law, Thursday (7/18/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A 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) was held once again by the Constitutional Court (MK) on Thursday, July 18, 2024. The petition No. 14/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by twenty-two notaries, who challenge the retirement age of the notary stipulated in the Law.

At a hearing chaired by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, advisor of the Minister of Law and Human Rights for Economic Affairs Lucky Agung Binarto said on behalf of the Government that Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b of the Notary Law stipulates that a notary shall retire or be honorably discharged at the age of 65. Article 8 paragraph (2) allows for the retirement age to be extended to 67, considering the notary's health condition.

He emphasized the need for an age requirement to ensure equal opportunities to become a notary. Such a requirement should be objectively based on the demands of the position and should not be discriminatory. The age limit stipulated in a quo article serves as a general and non-discriminatory requirement.

“Age requirements in the law and regulations serve as administrative order and legal certainty. In the notary position, age is used as a parameter to determine if an individual at a certain age has the necessary intellectual, spiritual, emotional, and behavioral maturity to perform their duties and responsibilities,” he explained.

He reiterated that notaries must perform their duties wisely and responsibly towards society, nation, and state. The professional retirement age is determined by the respective professional institutions or organizations as specified in the Notary Law. Consequently, retirement age is set by the legislatures based on the needs of each institution and is regulated by law.

Therefore, he stated that the retirement age is determined by the legislatures based on the needs of each institution in accordance with their duties and authorities, and is regulated in respective legislation.

He also mentioned that setting a retirement age is necessary for organizational regeneration with new notary candidates. The determination of retirement age is an open legal policy, as referenced in several Constitutional Court decisions (e.g. Decisions No. 15/PUU-V/2007, 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008, 37-39/PUU-VIII/2010, 49/PUU-IX/2011, 102/PUU-XIV/2016). This policy can be amended as needed according to developments and the specifics of the position, or through legislative review.

The legislatures have full authority, and any decision is acceptable as long as it complies with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

Thus, the Government views the Petitioners’ arguments as legally unfounded concerns. The a quo article provides legal certainty regarding the notary’s retirement age and applies to all notaries, ensuring no discriminatory treatment.

“Article a quo cannot be considered discriminatory as it does not treat individuals differently based on race, ethnicity, religion, economic status, or other social status. Different regulations do not automatically imply discrimination. Therefore, the article does not cause specific or actual harm, or at least potential harm, according to reasonable assumptions,” he stated.

Also read:

Provision on Notary’s Age Limit Challenged Again

Case of Notary’s Age Limit Gets More Petitioners

Govt Unprepared, Court Delays Hearing on Notary Law

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 appealed to the Court 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
Translators       : Dzaki Difa Al Hadiid/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.

---