Petitioners attending the Petition Revision Hearing on Case No. 179/PUU-XXIII/2025 on the material judicial review of Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary jo Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary, Thursday (23/10). Photo by MKRI/Bay.
Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court held another hearing on the judicial review of Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary, as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 (Notary Law), against the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The Petition Revision hearing was held on Thursday, October 23, 2025, in the Plenary Courtroom.
Case No. 179/PUU-XXIII/2025 was filed by two notaries, Zainun Ahmadi and Abubakar, both Indonesian citizens practicing in the profession. The petitioners claimed their constitutional rights were harmed by the delay in the delivery of Constitutional Court Decision No. 84/PUU-XXII/2024, which set the age limit for notary retirement. The hearing was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo, accompanied by Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and M. Guntur Hamzah.
During the hearing, Zainun Ahmadi, who attended without legal counsel, explained that the petition seeks to have Decision No. 84/PUU-XXII/2024 declared effective as of the date of filing (March 19, 2024), rather than the date of the ruling.
“The intention and purpose of every petitioner who files a petition with the Court are constitutional aspirations, regardless of whether the petition is granted. Therefore, we ask that the decision be applied as of the date of filing,” Zainun stated.
In the prior case, the Court, through Decision No. 84/PUU-XXII/2024, determined that notaries could extend their tenure on an annual basis after reaching age 67, up to a maximum of 70 years, provided they are physically and mentally fit. However, the petitioner argued that the delayed reading of the decision deprived them of the opportunity to extend their tenure, as they had turned 67 before the ruling was read on January 3, 2025.
The petitioners also noted that the time taken to resolve their case was disproportionately long compared to other matters. For example, Decision No. 170/PUU-XXII/2024 required only 28 days from filing to delivery, while their case lasted around nine months.
“The delay in issuing our decision compared to other cases demonstrates unfair treatment and runs counter to the principle of equality before the law,” Abu Bakar said.
Also read:
Petitioners Ask Constitutional Court for Retroactive Application of Notary Retirement Age Ruling
According to the petitioners, prior Constitutional Court decisions show that retroactive effect is possible, citing Decision No. 46/PUU-VIII/2010 on the status of children born out of wedlock, Decision No. 69/PUU-XIII/2015 on marital agreements, and Decision No. 112/PUU-XX/2022, which extended KPK Commissioners’ terms from four to five years.
The petitioners also said the lengthy review process violated the principle of a simple, quick, and low-cost trial as stipulated in Article 2 paragraph (4) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. They urged the Court to restore their right to extend their notarial office until age 70.
In their petitum, the petitioners requested that the Court declare the new interpretation of Article 8, paragraph (2), of the Notary Law conditionally unconstitutional, unless it is interpreted to mean that the new provision has been effective since March 19, 2024.
“We request that the Court emphasize that the new interpretation of the norm in Article 8 paragraph (2) of the Notary Law is effective since the filing of the petition, instead of the pronouncement of the ruling,” Zainun concluded.
Author: Utami Argawati
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Andhini S.F.
Translator: Rizky Kurnia Chaesario
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.
Thursday, October 23, 2025 | 15:02 WIB 291