The Petitioner attending the preliminary hearing of Case No. 215/PUU-XXIII/2025, Tuesday (11/18/2025). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Cecilia Masidin, a notary by profession, challenged the constitutionality of Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary Office in conjunction with Law No. 2 of 2014 amending Law No. 30 of 2004 before the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing of Case No. 215/PUU-XXIII/2025, chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, was convened on Tuesday, November 18, 2025.

Cecilia (the Petitioner), who has yet to receive an official retirement decree, referred to the judicial review petition in Case No. 84/PUU-XXII/2024 filed on March 19, 2024. On August 6, 2024, the Court held a hearing to listen to the key points of the petition’s revision. Without convening an evidentiary hearing, the Court proceeded directly to the ruling hearing on January 3, 2025. This timeline, spanning approximately nine months, featured no hearings to examine witnesses or experts proposed by the Petitioner and/or the relevant party.

Due to this, the Petitioner, who turned 67 on June 24, 2024, was unable to exercise her right to extend her tenure as a notary until the age of 70.

In her view, the principles of simple, swift, and low-cost justice laid out in Article 2 paragraph (4) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power had not been adequately observed. She cited the example of election results dispute settlement (PHPU), which must be resolved within 14 days after a petition is registered in the electronic constitutional case registration book (e-BRPK).

However, according to her, the Court did not apply such principles in issuing Ruling No. 84/PUU-XXII/2024, which she believes contradicts the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioner emphasized that she had actively monitored petitions on the retirement age of notaries, including the one filed in Case No. 84/PUU-XXII/2024 and those submitted by other applicants. She hoped the Court would grant them so she could extend her professional tenure. She asserted that she must be afforded the opportunity to continue earning a living for her family, as she is a single parent supporting children and other family members. She argued that she is entitled to equal opportunity and non-discriminatory treatment in accordance with Article 28H paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

“If granted, this petition would render the current policy constitutional,” she claimed.

The Petitioner requested that the Court declare the newly constructed meaning of Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 2004 unconstitutional and conditionally non-binding unless interpreted as follows: ‘The age requirement referred to in paragraph (1) letter b may be extended to 67 years old based on the individual’s health condition, and may be extended annually until the age of 70 based on medical examination results.’ She further asked that this new meaning be declared conditionally constitutional, binding the public as of March 19, 2024.

Justices’ Advice

During the hearing, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur noted that the article in question had been reviewed in previous cases, advising the Petitioner to address deficiencies in her petition. “The structure is generally in line with procedural rules, but the reference to the relevant laws at the beginning is too brief,” he remarked.

Constitutional Justice Arsul Sani asked the Petitioner to clarify the rationale for reinterpreting a provision previously addressed by the Court. “Although every citizen has the right to file a judicial review, I am not seeing any impediment under the Minister of Law and Human Rights regulations. Please elaborate on your constitutional impairment and legal standing,” he said.

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra encouraged the Petitioner to identify distinctive arguments compared to prior cases. “To resubmit your petition, you must explain what differentiates it from Case No. 179/PUU-XXIII/2025, whether in the grounds for review or the constitutional inconsistencies you allege. You must also clarify how the new interpretation contradicts the 1945 Constitution,” Saldi explained.

At the end of the hearing, he granted the Petitioner 14 days to submit a revised petition. The revision must be filed no later than Monday, December 1, 2025, at 12:00 PM to the Registrar’s Office. The Court will then schedule a follow-up hearing to examine the key points of the revised petition.

Explore the Case: Case No. 215/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Bahasa Indonesia)

Author: Sri Pujianti
Editor: N. Rosi

Translator: Yuanna Sisilia

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.

 

---