Recently, Friday, January 3, 2025, the Constitutional Court (MK) issued an important decision that has attracted widespread attention, especially among Notary and/or PPAT practitioners. This decision relates to the maximum age limit for notaries, which was previously regulated up to 65 years and could be extended to 67 years, is now extended to 70 years with the condition of annual health checks. This decision was issued by the Constitutional Court through Decision Number 84/PUU-XXII/2024, in which the Constitutional Court stated that the provisions regarding the maximum age limit for notaries in Article 8 paragraph (2) of Law No. 30 of 2004 concerning Notary Positions which has been amended by Law No. 2 of 2014 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution if it is not interpreted as follows: the age provisions as referred to in paragraph (1) letter b can be extended up to 67 years of age taking into account the health of the person concerned, and can be extended again every year up to 70 years of age taking into account the health of the person concerned based on the results of a doctor's examination carried out periodically every year at a hospital appointed by the Minister in charge of legal affairs. With this decision, notaries who reach the age of 65 can continue their positions up to a maximum age of 70 years, as long as they meet the requirements for annual health checks at government hospitals or hospitals appointed by the Ministry of Law. However, even though this decision is final and binding, its implementation requires further technical regulations. Without a revision to the Notary Position Law or implementing regulations from the Ministry of Law, there is potential for confusion in the field, especially for notaries who are about to enter retirement age. Interestingly, at almost the same time, the Constitutional Court last year issued a controversial decision regarding the minimum age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 added a new norm that the minimum age requirement for presidential and vice-presidential candidates is 40 years or has served as regional head. Unlike the decision regarding notaries, this decision can be implemented immediately without waiting for a revision of the Election Law or the General Election Commission Regulation (PKPU). According to Professor of Constitutional Law, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, the decision applies immediately because the situation is considered urgent, considering that the registration of presidential and vice-presidential candidates cannot be postponed. In the case of presidential and vice-presidential candidates, political urgency is the main reason. The registration of presidential and vice-presidential candidates has a deadline that cannot be changed, so the implementation of the Constitutional Court's decision is considered urgent in order to maintain certainty in the implementation of the 2024 Election. On the other hand, in the case of notaries, even though this profession is directly related to public services and legal certainty, a similar urgency does not seem to be recognized. If implementing regulations regarding the notary age limit decision are not immediately issued, there is a risk of a legal vacuum. Notaries who reach the age of 67 may be confused as to whether they can immediately extend their term of office to 70 years or must wait for technical rules from the Ministry of Law. This condition could have an impact on the legal services provided by notaries to the public. On the other hand, in the case of presidential and vice-presidential candidates, the risk of a legal vacuum was avoided by immediately implementing the Constitutional Court's decision without waiting for regulatory revisions. This shows that there is different treatment of two Constitutional Court decisions that are both final and binding. The Constitutional Court's decision is final and binding from the moment it is read out, but its implementation can differ depending on the situation and interpretation of urgency. This case shows that legal certainty in Indonesia is still dynamic, where the application of the Constitutional Court's decision can be influenced by political and administrative contexts. As academics and legal practitioners, it is important for us to encourage clearer standards regarding when the Constitutional Court's decision can take effect immediately and when it requires regulatory revisions. Equal treatment of all legal professions, including notaries, must be a primary concern. If the Constitutional Court's decision on presidential and vice-presidential candidates can take effect immediately in order to maintain political certainty, then the Constitutional Court's decision on notary age should also be able to be implemented immediately in order to maintain legal certainty and public services. The Constitutional Court's decision regarding the age limit for notaries up to 70 years provides new hope for senior notaries to continue contributing to providing legal services. However, without clear implementing regulations, there is a risk of uncertainty in the field. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court's decision regarding the age of presidential and vice-presidential candidates shows that under certain conditions, the Constitutional Court's decision can be implemented immediately without waiting for regulatory revisions. Legal certainty is indeed dynamic, but it must still guarantee fair and equal treatment for all parties. In this context, the role of the government and the DPR is very important to immediately follow up on the Constitutional Court's decision with appropriate regulations, so that the expected legal certainty can be realized properly.