Petitioners attending the hearing of Case No. 65/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the judicial review of the Notary Law on Thursday (5/3). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) - Seven lawyers have joined as Petitioners in Case No. 65/PUU-XXIV/2026 seeking judicial review of Article 66 paragraph (1), paragraph (3), and paragraph (4) of Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Notary Office as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014. As a result, the Petition now has nine Petitioners: Henoch Thomas, Syamsul Jahidin, ST Luthfiani, Popy Desiyantie, Fredy Limantara, Uswatun Hasanah, Steven Izaac Risakotta, Elyas Marulitua, and Irfan Wahyudi.

“The number of Petitioners, which was initially two, has now become nine,” Syamsul said during the petition revision hearing on Thursday, March 5, 2026, in the Constitutional Court courtroom in Jakarta.

Syamsul stated that they had expanded the grounds of the petition, including the argument that the requirement for approval from the Notary Honorary Council (MKN) to obtain copies of authentic data could constitute a form of constitutional disobedience. He explained that this arrangement is historically rooted in Law 30/2004, under which the body authorized to grant permission for examination was the Regional Supervisory Council (MPD).

The Constitutional Court later annulled that provision in Decision No. 49/PUU-X/2012, deeming it to violate the principle of equality before the law. However, when the provision was revised, Law 2/2014 effectively reintroduced a similar norm by replacing the MPD with the MKN, without any substantive change in the mechanism or legal consequences.

Article 66 paragraph (1) letters a and b of the Notary Law state: “(1) For the purposes of judicial proceedings, investigators, public prosecutors, or judges, with the approval of the Notary Ethics Council, are authorized to: a) obtain copies of deeds (Minuta Akta) and/or documents attached to deeds or to notarial protocols in the notary’s custody; and b) summon the notary to testify in proceedings relating to deeds or protocols in the notary’s custody.” Article 66 paragraph (3) states: “The Notary Honorary Council, within no later than 30 (thirty) working days from receipt of the letter requesting approval as referred to in paragraph (1), shall be obliged to provide an answer granting or refusing the request for approval.” Article 66 paragraph (4) stipulates: “If the Notary Honorary Council does not provide an answer within the period referred to in paragraph (3), the Notary Honorary Council shall be deemed to have granted the request for approval.”

According to the Petitioners, the MKN approval requirement set out in these provisions could constitute a form of constitutional disobedience because its substance mirrors a norm already struck down by the Constitutional Court. Although the institution’s name has changed from MPD to MKN, the essence of the regulation remains the same: investigators, prosecutors, or judges must obtain approval from a particular body before examining a notary. This, they argue, indicates that the legislature has effectively disregarded a Constitutional Court decision that should serve as guidance in drafting legislation.

The Petitioners contended that the MKN approval requirement risks undermining the principle of independence in law enforcement. In practice, the MKN has the authority to refuse or delay requests to examine a notary, thereby impeding investigations. This situation not only slows access to justice (justice delayed) but also creates space for impunity for notaries suspected of involvement in criminal cases. When a non-judicial body, such as the MKN, holds a decisive position in law enforcement processes, the principle of equality before the law is diminished.

“From a constitutional perspective, the existence of this norm also potentially deviates from the principle of constitutional supremacy and the principle of due process of law. The provision grants quasi-judicial authority to the MKN without any appeal mechanism or legal control over its decisions. Thus, the MKN effectively acts as a ‘decider’ of whether an examination may proceed, a role that should belong to the judiciary. Such a pattern risks creating overlapping powers and weakening the system of checks and balances laid down in the 1945 Constitution,” Syamsul said.

Also read:

Two Lawyers Challenge Rule Requiring MKN Approval to Access Authentic Notarial Records

The dispute arises from a client’s report alleging forgery and/or the insertion of false information into an authentic deed as referred to in the Criminal Code. In practice, a witness summoned by investigators to provide testimony as evidence could not be examined until MKN approved it, even though the testimony was needed for an ongoing legal process.

During the investigation to identify suspects in the police report, Greater Jakarta Metropolitan Police investigators needed to question the notary as a witness, as the notary drafted the authentic deed suspected of containing false information. Because the person summoned is a notary, the investigators first had to request permission from MKN under Article 66 paragraph (1) of the Notary Law.

However, the Petitioners argued that such a request may be denied because Article 66 paragraph (3) allows MKN to either accept or reject investigators’ requests. At the same time, the Petitioners, their client, and the investigators have no legal remedy to challenge an MKN refusal.

They said this potential refusal creates serious obstacles for investigators in pursuing the police report concerning the alleged falsification of information in an authentic deed. In their view, if a notary is proven to have committed any of the alleged criminal acts, whether directly, by ordering others, by participating, by inducing others to use forged documents, by inserting false statements into an authentic deed, or by accepting gifts or promises to influence their actions or omissions in office, then the notary must also face criminal sanctions.

The Petitioners argue that Article 66 paragraph (1) letters a and b, paragraph (3), and paragraph (4) conflict with Articles 1 paragraph (3), 27D paragraph (1), and 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. In their main petitum, they ask the Court to declare these provisions unconstitutional and without binding legal force.

In their revised petition, the Petitioners requested the Court to declare Article 66 paragraph (1) of Law 30 of 2004 conditionally unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as: “(1) For the purposes of judicial proceedings, investigators, public prosecutors, or judges, upon notifying the Notary Honorary Council, shall be authorized to:”. They also asked the Court to declare Article 66 paragraph (3) of Law 30 of 2004 conditionally unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as: “(3) The Notary Honorary Council, within no later than 30 (thirty) working days from receipt of the notification letter as referred to in paragraph (1), shall be obliged to provide a response.”.

In addition, they requested the Court to declare Article 66 paragraph (4) of Law 30 of 2004 conditionally unconstitutional with the 1945 Constitution and to have no binding legal force insofar as it is not interpreted as: “(4) If the Notary Honorary Council does not provide a response within the period referred to in paragraph (3), the Notary Honorary Council shall be deemed to have received the notification.”.

Case tracking: Petition No. 65/PUU-XXIV/2026 (in Indonesian)

Author: Mimi Kartika
Editor: Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR: Raisa Ayuditha M.

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.

---