Agung Irianto testifying on behalf of the Indonesian Notary Association as a Relevant Party at a material judicial review hearing of the Notary Law, Wednesday (7/31/2024). 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 Wednesday, July 31, 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.

The executive board of the Indonesian Notary Association (INI), represented by secretary Agung Irianto, said the constitutional impairment of notaries due to the enforcement of the articles being reviewed is apparent. It not only affects notaries but also their families, staff members, and the state. They themselves have the real loss of potential loss of job after retiring from their position.

“Notaries feel the psychological impact after retirement. Following the Notary Law, even after retirement, for as long as they live, they must be responsible for the deeds that they have made, even when they are no longer notaries,” Agung said before Chief Justice Suhartoyo and the other constitutional justices.

He believes that questioning age limit is not unconstitutional as the age limit for notaries is not explicitly stated in the 1945 Constitution. The Court, he said, can not only review Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Notary Law against the 1945 Constitution, but also grant the entirety of the Petitioners’ petitum.

“The provisions of the article should not be categorized an open legal policy that seems to have a higher position than the 1945 Constitution,” he stressed.

He added that the delay of a profession’s retirement age in the articles do not meet the Court’s criteria for open legal policy. Thus, such a restriction is a form of intolerable justice where the notary profession is not recognized, and eliminates opportunity for notaries who have served for decades while not being paid by the Government and nor burdening the state finances.

Meanwhile, Amriyati Amin of the Indonesian Notary Association’s Extraordinary Congress (Relevant Party) explained the association’s recognition of the Petitioners’ concerns. It left it to the constitutional justices to assess, consider, and decide on the judicial review of Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notaries.

“The Indonesian Notary Association believes in the constitutional justices’ statesmanship in deciding the a quo case based on justice and the belief in One Supreme God,” she emphasized.

Not Constitutionality Issue

In response, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra said that the constitutional justices decide on cases based on strong legal arguments, not by order. He questioned the legal basis of the petition, given that retirement ages for certain professions are not laid out explicitly in the Constitution. He said that the retirement age of notaries only becomes an issue of constitutionality when it is juxtaposed with norms in the Constitution.

“Can [you] knock down the [Court’s] legal stance in the previous (decision)? Secondly, it should be noted that there are countries where the [retirement] age of a notary is seventy, even below seventy, and even above, but that is not determined by a court decision. This is so because the question of age, as long as it is not mentioned in the Constitution, does not become a constitutional issue. There must be a strong argumentation, why the question of the age of notaries can become a constitutional issue,” he said.

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

Govt: Age Requirement for Notary Serves as Parameter

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       : 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.

---