Constitutional Court Ruling on the Age Limit for Notary Positions: Legal Certainty Still Hanging?

Recently, Friday, January 3, 2025 Constitutional Court (MK) issued an important ruling that has garnered widespread attention, especially among Notary and/or PPAT practitioners. This ruling concerns the maximum age limit for notary positions, which was previously set at 65 years and extendable to 67 years, is now extended to 70 years, subject to annual health check-ups. This decision was issued by the Constitutional Court through the Ruling Decree No. 84/PUU-XXII/2024, in which the Constitutional Court stated that the provision 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 provision as referred to in paragraph (1) letter b may be extended up to 67 years of age, taking into account the health of the person concerned, and may be extended again each 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 conducted periodically each year at a hospital designated by the Minister in charge of affairs in the field of of lawWith this ruling, notaries who reach the age of 65 can continue their positions up to a maximum age of 70, provided they meet the requirements for annual health check-ups at government hospitals or hospitals appointed by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. However, even though this decision is final and binding, its implementation requires further technical regulations. Without revisions to the Notary Position Law or implementing regulations from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights, there is potential for confusion in the field, especially for notaries who are about to reach retirement age. Interestingly, around the same time, the Constitutional Court last year issued a controversial decision regarding the minimum age requirement 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 having served as a regional head. Unlike the decision regarding notaries, this decision can be implemented directly without waiting for revisions to the Election Law or the General Election Commission Regulation (PKPU). According to Constitutional Law Professor, Yusril Ihza Mahendra, the decision took effect immediately because the situation was considered urgent, given that the registration of presidential and vice-presidential candidates could not be postponed. In the case of presidential and vice-presidential candidates, political urgency was 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 was considered urgent in order to maintain certainty in the implementation of the 2024 Election. Conversely, in the case of notaries, even though this profession is directly related to public services and legal certainty, similar urgency does not seem to be recognized. If implementing regulations related to the notary age limit decision are not issued immediately, there is a risk of a legal vacuum. Notaries who reach the age of 67 may be confused as to whether they can directly extend their term of office to 70 years or must wait for technical rules from the Ministry of Law and Human Rights. This condition could have an impact on the legal services provided by notaries to the public. Conversely, 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 for two Constitutional Court decisions that are both final and binding. The Constitutional Court's decision is indeed 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 a Constitutional Court 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 the age of notaries 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 of notaries up to 70 years old provides new hope for senior notaries to continue contributing to the provision of legal services. However, without clear implementing regulations, there is a risk of uncertainty on the ground. 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 directly implemented 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 House of Representatives is very important to immediately follow up on the Constitutional Court's decision with appropriate regulations, so that the expected legal certainty can be well realized.