Skip to content
ai-generated

Notaries' Authority Over Land, Mortgage and Strata Deeds: MK 201/PUU-XXIV/2026

CRPG

CRPG

— 3 min read
Share
Regulatory digest Published 2 October 2026 Machine-drafted

The Constitutional Court of Indonesia (Mahkamah Konstitusi) has declared inadmissible a petition in case 201/PUU-XXIV/2026, brought by Anisitus Amanat, a notary based in Semarang. The petitioner sought a material review of three statutes against the 1945 Constitution: Law No. 30 of 2004 on the Office of Notary as amended by Law No. 2 of 2014, Law No. 4 of 1996 on Security Rights over Land and Land-Related Objects, and Law No. 20 of 2011 on Flats. His central request was that deeds concerning land, security rights over land and strata units be made before notaries, rather than before land deed officials (PPAT), whose office rests on government regulations. The petition was filed on 5 June 2026, registered on 8 June 2026, and revised in a version received by the Court on 1 July 2026.

The Petition

The petitioner stated that he could no longer draw up land-related deeds as a land deed official in Kendal Regency, following a letter from the head of the Kendal land office, and that restoring this work through his notarial office would repair that loss. He argued that the authority of land deed officials derives from regulations below the level of statute, now Government Regulation No. 37 of 1998 as amended by Government Regulation No. 24 of 2016, and that this arrangement conflicts with Articles 20, 21 and 22A of the Constitution as implemented through Article 12 of Law No. 12 of 2011 on the Making of Laws and Regulations. He contrasted the educational requirements for notaries, which include a law degree and a master's degree in notarial studies under Article 3(e) of the Notary Law, with the requirements for land deed officials, and he set out comparative material on the Netherlands and France, where land conveyances and mortgages are executed by notarial deed.

His requested orders asked the Court to give a conditional reading to Article 15(2)(f) of the Notary Law, which authorises notaries to make deeds relating to land, so that it would list specific land transactions; to read Article 1 point 4 together with Article 17 of Law No. 4 of 1996 so that notaries, not land deed officials, would make transfer and security-right deeds; to declare the Elucidation of Article 44(1) of Law No. 20 of 2011 without binding force; and to assign the appointment, supervision and sanctioning of notaries to the Ministry of Law on the recommendation of the land ministry.

The Court first confirmed its jurisdiction under Article 24C(1) of the Constitution, Article 10(1)(a) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 29(1)(a) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power. Before turning to legal standing and the merits, it examined the formal sufficiency of the petition. It recorded that at the preliminary hearing on 18 June 2026 it had advised the petitioner to clarify the norms under review, his standing, the arguments showing a conflict with the Constitution, and the wording of the requested orders, and that he was given until 1 July 2026 to revise.

Measured against Article 30(a) and Article 31(1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Articles 10(3) and 36(1) of Constitutional Court Regulation No. 7 of 2025, the Court found that the petition followed the required structure. It then assessed the clarity of its content under Article 51(3)(b) of the Constitutional Court Law and Article 68 of Regulation No. 7 of 2025, which allows a petition to be declared unclear where the arguments and the requested orders do not correspond.

On the arguments, the Court found that the petitioner did not explain how each challenged article and elucidation in the three statutes conflicts with the Constitution. The petition dealt mostly with government regulations, the hierarchy of legislation and technical regulatory questions about the division of deed-making authority between land deed officials and notaries.

On the requested orders, the Court identified three defects. The phrase joining Article 1 point 4 with Article 17 of Law No. 4 of 1996 left unclear which norm was under review. The request concerning the Elucidation of Article 44(1) of Law No. 20 of 2011 used Constitutional Court Decision No. 005/PUU-III/2005 as the benchmark, whereas Article 2(5) of Regulation No. 7 of 2025 requires statutory content to be tested against the Constitution itself. The fifth request named no statutory norm at all, even though the Court had advised at the 18 June hearing that an object of review be added. Taking these findings together, the Court held the petition to be unclear and vague, and did not consider it further.

The Ruling

The Court declared the petition inadmissible. It did not rule on the petitioner's standing or on the constitutionality of any of the challenged provisions. The decision was reached in deliberation on 2 July 2026 by nine justices chaired by Suhartoyo and was pronounced in open plenary session on 16 July 2026. No dissenting opinion is recorded.

Read the full decision in the official record.

Methodology: This memo summarises the official decision text and is not legal advice; report corrections to contact@crpg.id.

Disclaimer

This article was AI-generated under an experimental legal-AI application. It may contain errors, inaccuracies, or hallucinations. The content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal advice or authoritative interpretation of regulations.

We accept no liability whatsoever for any decisions made based on this article. Readers are strongly advised to:

  • Consult the official regulation text from government sources
  • Seek professional legal counsel for specific matters
  • Verify all information independently

This experimental AI application is designed to improve access to regulatory information, but accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Read next