An online judicial review hearing of Notary Profession Law examining a petition’s revision, Thursday (15/8/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ilham WM.

---

JAKARTA, HUMAS MKRI - The Constitutional Court (MKRI) again held a judicial review hearing on Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary Profession, which has been amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 on Amendments to Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary Profession (Notary Profession Law) on Thursday (15/8/2024). Anisitus Amanat, who works as a notary, attended the hearing with the agenda of examining the revision of the petition.

In front of the panel led by Justice Arief Hidayat, accompanied by Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Justice Arsul Sani, Anisitus mentioned the main revisions to his petition. In Case No. 84/PUU-XXII/2024, which argues Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and paragraph (2) of the Notary Profession Law, Anisitus has improved several parts, including the object of the petition to be a judicial review of Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Notary Profession Law. Furthermore, the Petitioner has refined the reasons for the petition, namely the life expectancy of Indonesians, which is generally more than 70 years old, the retirement age of notaries in other countries, such as South Korea is 70 years old, Spain is 72 years old, and Supreme Court and Constitutional Court Justices also retire at the age of 70.

“Even the professions of public accountant, curator, and doctor only stipulate that the extension of office is carried out every 5 years, and advocates have no retirement age limit. Thus, the additional retirement age of notaries, which is only 2 years, is very discriminatory, and there is an element of injustice that cannot be tolerated. So the Petitioner hoped that the Court would be willing to change and increase the retirement age or be dismissed from office with honor after the age of 65 years and can be extended every 5 years, as long as they are still physically and/or mentally healthy based on a doctor's certificate appointed by the state,” Anisitus explained.

Also read: Different Retirement Ages of Notary and Advocate Deemed Discriminatory

During the preliminary hearing, Petitioner said he had been harmed by the retirement age of the notary, which is 65 years and may be extended until 67 years by considering the health of the notary in question. Meanwhile, there is no such age restriction for the profession of advocate. He argued that both are professionals in the field of law who do not receive salary and other benefits from the state, as per Article 9 paragraph (1) of the Advocate Law. This, he emphasized, is the proof of unequal treatment before the law between the notary and the advocate, which is in violation of Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. The Petitioner further mentioned that as long as the norm of honorable dismissal only exists for notaries and at the same time, a similar norm does not exist for the advocate profession, which both do not get any contribution from state funds, then the notary profession has not received legal protection from discriminatory treatment.(*)

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Fauzan Febriyan

Translators: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario/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.

 

---