One of the Petitioners of the judicial review of notary’s age restriction in Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 8 paragraph (2) of Notary Law at the ruling hearing, Friday (1/3/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) dismissed the petition for the material judicial review of the retirement age for notaries as stipulated in Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Notary Law. The petition was filed by 24 notaries in Case Number 14/PUU-XXII/2024.

In its legal considerations, delivered by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, the Court stated the Petitioners’ arguments that Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b of the Notary Law was unconstitutional if not interpreted as “has reached the age of 70 (seventy) years” was dismissed because the Court views the regulation of the retirement age for public officers falls under the authority of the lawmaking branch (legislative review).

“As for the age limit of 65 years, the Court does not find any fundamental and strong reason to shift from the legal considerations for the Constitutional Court Decision Number 52/PUU-VIII/2010. Thus, the Court states that the legal considerations for Decision Number 52/PUU-VIII/2010 mutatis mutandis applies to the legal considerations of the a quo petition as far as it relates to Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 30 of 2004,” said Justice Foekh at the ruling hearing on Friday, January 3, 2025 in the plenary courtroom

The Court views that the Petitioners’ petition alleging Article 8 paragraph (2) of the law to be unconstitutional if not interpreted as “The provision on age as referred to in paragraph (1) letter b can be extended by considering the health of the relevant person” has substantially the same object as the Case Number 84/PUU-XXII/2024.

As a result, Justice Foekh continued, the Court has ruled the Decision Number 84/PUU-XXII/2024 at an open plenary session on January 3, 2025, with a verdict that reads, “The provision on age as referred to in paragraph (1) letter b can be extended until the age of 67 years by considering the health of the relevant person and can be extended further every year until the age of 70 years by considering the health of the relevant person based on regular annual health checkups by a medical practitioner.”

After the verdict, Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Notary Law now has a new interpretation since the pronouncement of the ruling [vide Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Law], not as stated in the petition, thus the Petitioners’ argument pertaining to its unconstitutionality has lost object.

The Court did not find Article 8 paragraph (1) letter b of the Notary Law to be in violation of the fulfillment of the right to work and to have a decent livelihood, the right to develop oneself, the right to fair legal certainty, and the right to protection from discriminative treatments as guaranteed by Article 27 paragraph (2), Article 28C paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution as alleged by the Petitioners. Thus, the arguments of the petition were legally groundless, and the Court rendered the Petitioners’ petition having lost its object.

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

Notary Association’s Executive Board: Provision on Notary’s Retirement Age Harmful

Expert: Most Notaries Still Competent at Age Seventy

Expert: Notary’s Retirement Age Is an Injustice

Law Expert Talks Notary’s Retirement Age

Expert: Notary’s Retirement Age Is an Injustice

Twenty-four notaries challenged the retirement age of the notary stipulated in the Notary Law. They alleged 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 asserted that they had been harmed by the enforcement of Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Notary Law, which stipulates that the retirement age limit can be extended until 67 with health as consideration.

Therefore, the Petitioners alleged 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 and not legally binding.

Author              : Utami Argawati
Editor               : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR                    : Tiara Agustina
Translator          : M. Hafidh Al Mukmin/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.

---