Jaka Fiton, principal Petitioner, during the ruling hearing on judicial review on Harmonization of Laws related to the Notary Profession and Electronic Documents, Tuesday (30/07) in the courtroom. Tuesday (7/30/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI)—The Constitutional Court (MK) decided not to grant the material judicial review petition of the Civil Code (KUHPer), Law on the Notary Profession, and the Law on Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT) filed by Sunyoto and Jaka Fiton, father and son; the former is a retired notary while the latter is an active one.

“[The Court] adjudicated, declares the petitioner’s petition inadmissible,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo alongside the other eight constitutional justices during the ruling hearing on Decision No.34/PUU-XXII/2024 on Tuesday, July 30, 2024.

In its legal considerations, delivered by Justice Ridwan Mansyur, the Court asserted that it was difficult to clearly discern the conflicts between each norm in the challenged article with the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. Furthermore, among the 21 norms in the articles petitioned by the Petitioners, each norm under challenge is supported by five to six touchstones towards the 1945 Constitution.

In their posita, the Petitioners mainly elaborated on empirical facts related to their experiences as notaries and provided many explanations that were less relevant to the norms being challenged. Thus, this blurred the focus of the petition.

The Petitioners also argued that the norms in the proposed articles were irrational, irrelevant, open to multiple interpretations, inconsistent, contradictory, and caused ambiguity. Therefore, according to the Petitioners, the articles being challenged violated the principles of equal protection and their constitutional rights. However, the requirement for an article and/or clause of the law to be declared without legally binding force is that it must be proven and declared unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution.

Regarding their petitum, the Court reconfirmed the Petitioners during the preliminary examination hearing with the agenda for revising the petition, but they remained steadfast in their stance. Furthermore, according to the Court, all formulations of provisions and petitum by the Petitioners were unclear or at least did not correspond to the customary petitum of judicial review cases.

"Formally, such petitum is not as intended in Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of Constitutional Court Regulation No.2 of 2021," said Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur.

Also read:

Former Notary and Notary Son Challenge Provisions on Notary

Petitioners Ask That Notary’s Term of Office Can Be Extended

Father and son Sunyoto and Jaka Fiton (Petitioners I and II) challenged several articles of the Civil Code (KUHPer), the Law on the Notary Profession, and the Law on Electronic Information and Transactions (EIT). On May 5, 2022, Sunyoto entered into retirement, while Jaka Fiton is currently a notary until his retirement on October 25, 2044.

The Petitioners felt that their constitutional rights to work and decent livelihood, to develop and advance themselves, to choose a job and a place to live within the state, and to leave the state and to return, as guaranteed in Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraphs (1) and (2), and Article 28E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution have been impaired. These losses arose due to the enforcement of specific provisions in the Civil Code, Notary Law, and EIT Law that do not have a ratio legis or a reasonable, appropriate, equal, fair, and correct foundation and/or rationalization.

In their 17-page petitum, the Petitioners requested that the Court create new norms and add new requirements rather than interpret or give new meaning to the articles petitioned for review. They requested that the Court declare the provisions reviewed to have no binding legal force and that the Petitioners provide alternative meanings to the articles. 

Author            : Mimi Kartika
Editor             : Nur R.
PR                 : Fauzan Febriyan
Translator      : Intana Selvira Fauzi/Yuniar Widiastuti/Rizky Kurnia Chaesario (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.

---