Petitioners’ legal counsel attending the Decision Pronouncement Hearing on Case No. 140/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the material review of Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary, Wednesday (17/6). Photo by MKRI/Bay.

---

Jakarta (MKRI) – The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected in its entirety the material review of Article 13 of Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 on the Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2004 on Notary (Notary Law). The pronouncement of Decision No. 140/PUU-XXIV/2026 submitted by Askanah, Wakiyo, and others was presided over by Chief Justice Suhartoyo at the Plenary Courtroom on Wednesday, June 17, 2026.

The Court’s legal considerations, read by Justice Ridwan Mansyur, stated that, from the perspective of administrative law and professional ethics, certain types of criminal offenses are considered highly reprehensible and inconsistent with the principle of integrity in public office. Consequently, the criterion used is the classification of criminal offenses as reflected in their prescribed penalties. In this regard, Justice Ridwan continued, the classification of criminal offenses and their corresponding penalties aims to establish an objective and uniform standard for certain serious or grave offenses as determined by the legislature.

Thus, according to the Court, the choice of parameters used for each position or profession falls within the realm of legal policy, which in principle cannot be assessed solely as a constitutional issue, as long as such choices remain within the bounds of rationality and proportionality and are intended to safeguard the integrity of the position and the public interest.

Furthermore, a notary is an independent and autonomous position based on authority granted directly by law. Furthermore, this position does not fall under a hierarchical supervisory structure, unlike most bureaucratic positions. Therefore, high standards are necessary to uphold the notary's professionalism, accountability, and integrity through regulations governing dishonorable dismissal, using parameters based on the severity of criminal offenses as determined by their respective penalties.

“According to the Court, the Petitioners’ argument regarding the unconstitutionality of the phrase ‘for committing a punishable criminal offense’ in Article 13 of the Notary Law is unfounded and must therefore be declared legally unfounded,” said Justice Ridwan.

Also read:

The Lack of Firm Sanctions for Notaries Accused of Crimes Punishable by Under Five Years

Five More Petitioners Challenge Notary Law

During the preliminary hearing on Monday, April 27, 2026, the Petitioners argued that Article 13 of the Notary Law, particularly the phrase “committing a criminal offense punishable”, violates their constitutional rights. Article 13 of the Notary Law states, “A Notary shall be dishonorably dismissed by the Minister if he or she is sentenced to imprisonment, pursuant to a court decision that has obtained permanent legal force, for committing a criminal offense punishable by imprisonment for five (5) years or more.”

Syamsul Jahidin mentioned that the Notary Law provides supervisory mechanisms through the Notary Supervisory Council to oversee notaries in the performance of their duties and exercise of their authorities. Among the authorities stipulated in Article 73, paragraph e, of the Notary Law is the imposition of sanctions, including oral and written warnings. The application of administrative sanctions and law enforcement instruments under the Notary Law includes preventive (supervision) and repressive actions (sanctions).

However, the challenged norm does not include sanctions for a notary accused of a criminal offense punishable by less than five years. This creates opportunities for the supervisory authorities over notaries to abuse their powers, exposing notaries facing criminal proceedings to potential extortion by those supervisors.

Read in full: Decision No. 140/PUU-XXIV/2026

Author: Sri Pujianti.

Editor: N. Rosi.

PR: Adriana.

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.

---