Cecilia Masidin (Petitioner) delivering the revisions to her petition at a material review hearing of the Notary Laws for Case No. 215/PUU-XXIII/2025, Monday (12/1/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the second material judicial review hearing of Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Profession in conjunction with Law No. 2 of 2014 amending Law No. 30 of 2004 on Monday, December 1, 2025. The panel hearing, chaired by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, was to examine the revisions to the petition No. 215/PUU-XXIII/2025.

The Petitioner, Cecilia Masidin—a notary by profession—has revised the several things in the petition, such as the benchmark for review and the elaboration of the Court’s jurisdictions. The section on the petitioner’s legal standing has also been revised by elaborating the underlying laws. The petitums has also been improved.

“The Petitioner requests that the Court declare the new meaning of the norm in Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Profession contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not legally binding conditionally insofar as it is not interpreted as follows: ‘The age requirement as referred to in paragraph (1) letter b may be extended until the age of 67 (sixty-seven) by taking into account the individual’s health and may be extended annually until the age of 70 (seventy) by taking into account the individual’s health based on the results of a medical examination conducted annually at a central government public hospital, a regional public hospital, or a hospital designated by the minister responsible for legal affairs,’ and having binding legal force applicable to the public conditionally (conditionally constitutional) without exception for those who have not reached 70 years of age,” the Petitioner said as she read out the revised petitums.

Also read: Petitioner Claims Delayed Judgment Impaired Right to Extend Notary Tenure

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, November 18, 2025, the Petitioner, who has yet to receive an official retirement decree, questioned 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 revisions to the petition. 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 Petitioners and/or the Relevant Party.

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 disputes, 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 petitioners. 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.

Explore Case No. 215/PUU-XXIII/2025 (in Indonesian).

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
Translators   : Yuniar Widiastuti, Yuanna Sisilia (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.

---