Constitutional Court Decision 201/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia on a petition for material review of three statutes: the law on the office of notary (Undang-Undang 30/2004, as amended by Undang-Undang 2/2014), the law on security rights over land (Hak Tanggungan, Undang-Undang 4/1996) and the law on flats (rumah susun, Undang-Undang 20/2011).^[1] The petition, brought by a notary, sought readings of those statutes under which deeds transferring and encumbering land rights, and deeds for strata units, would be made by notaries rather than by land deed officials (Pejabat Pembuat Akta Tanah, PPAT).^[2] The case is one of the constitutional review cases decided by the Court on 16 July 2026, and concerns the deeds by which security rights over land are created, a part of financial sector regulation in Indonesia.^[3]

The Court held that it had jurisdiction but did not reach the petitioner's standing or the merits. It found that the grounds did not explain how the provisions under review conflicted with the Constitution, and that three of the requested orders were framed in ways the Court's procedure does not admit; it declared the petition unclear (obscuur) and inadmissible.^[4][3:1] The division of land-deed work between notaries and land deed officials was not decided.^[5]

¶ Provisions under review

Pasal 15 of the Notary Law lists the powers of a notary. Its ayat (2) huruf f, in the text as amended by Undang-Undang 2/2014, empowers a notary also to make deeds relating to land (akta yang berkaitan dengan pertanahan).^[6][7] Undang-Undang 4/1996 defines the land deed official, in Pasal 1 angka 4, as a public official authorised to make deeds transferring land rights, deeds encumbering land rights and deeds granting a power to create a Hak Tanggungan, "according to the laws and regulations in force".^[8] Its Pasal 17 leaves the form and content of the deed granting a Hak Tanggungan, the form of its land register and the procedure for granting and registering the right to a government regulation under Pasal 19 of the Basic Agrarian Law of 1960.^[9] Pasal 44(1) of Undang-Undang 20/2011 requires the sale of a strata unit after the building is completed to be made by a deed of sale (akta jual beli, AJB); the Elucidation of that paragraph states that the deed is made before a notary-PPAT for a strata title certificate (SHM sarusun) and before a notary for a certificate of ownership of a building unit (SKBG sarusun).^[10]

¶ Petition

The petition was received by the Court on 5 June 2026 and registered on 8 June 2026; a revised petition dated 27 June 2026 was received on 1 July 2026.^[11] The petitioner stated that he could no longer draw up land deeds in his capacity as a land deed official following a May 2026 letter from the head of a regency land office, and that the loss would be repaired if he could make the same deeds as a notary. He relied on Pasal 28C(1) and Pasal 28D(1) and (2) of the 1945 Constitution, which protect self-development, legal certainty and the right to work.^[12]

The grounds argued that the authority of land deed officials rests on regulations below the level of statute, chiefly Peraturan Pemerintah 37/1998 on the office of land deed official, and that the two statutes that refer to land deed officials therefore conflicted with Pasal 12 of Undang-Undang 12/2011 on law-making, which the petition presented as implementing Pasal 20, 21 and 22A of the Constitution.^[13] The petition compared the qualifications of notaries and land deed officials, set out material on the conveyancing role of notaries in the Netherlands and France, and argued that the application was not barred by decision 5/PUU-XII/2014 on the Notary Law or by decision 72/PUU-XXIII/2025, because it relied on different constitutional provisions.^[13:1] In decision 72/PUU-XXIII/2025, pronounced on 3 July 2025 on a petition against the same three statutes, the Court had held that the petitioner lacked standing and had not considered the merits.^[14]

The requested orders asked the Court to declare Pasal 15(2)(f) of the Notary Law conditionally unconstitutional unless read as empowering notaries to make listed deeds on land rights, which land offices would be bound to register; to give the same conditional reading to Pasal 1 angka 4 of Undang-Undang 4/1996 "jo" Pasal 17, so that notaries would make deeds transferring and encumbering land rights; to declare the Elucidation of Pasal 44(1) of Undang-Undang 20/2011 contrary to Constitutional Court decision 005/PUU-III/2005 and without binding force; and to declare that the appointment, supervision and sanctioning of notaries lay with the law ministry on the recommendation of the land ministry.^[2:1]

¶ Ruling

¶ Procedure

At the preliminary examination on 18 June 2026 the Court advised the petitioner, under Pasal 39 of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 36(3) of Peraturan Mahkamah Konstitusi 7/2025 on procedure in statutory review cases, to clarify the norms under review, his standing and constitutional loss, the conflict between those norms and the Constitution, and the wording of the relief, and gave him until 1 July 2026 to revise. The revision arrived by post on the morning of 1 July 2026 and was heard that afternoon.^[15]

¶ Formal sufficiency

The Court accepted that the revised petition followed the structure required by Pasal 30 huruf a and Pasal 31(1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 10(3) and Pasal 36(1) of Peraturan MK 7/2025, setting out jurisdiction, standing, grounds (posita) and relief (petitum). It held, however, that formal sufficiency also turns on the clarity of each part and on the correspondence between grounds and relief, measured against Pasal 51(3) huruf b of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 68 of Peraturan MK 7/2025.^[16]

On the grounds, the Court found that the petition did not explain how each article and elucidation under review conflicted with the Constitution, and 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.^[4:1] On the relief, it found three defects. The phrase joining Pasal 1 angka 4 and Pasal 17 of Undang-Undang 4/1996 left the Court unable to tell which norm was under review. The request on the Elucidation of Pasal 44(1) of Undang-Undang 20/2011 took decision 005/PUU-III/2005 as the standard of review, whereas Pasal 2(5) of Peraturan MK 7/2025 requires a statutory provision to be tested against the 1945 Constitution. The fifth request named no statutory provision at all, although the Court had advised at the preliminary examination that one be added.^[4:2] Taking these findings together, the Court held the petition unclear or obscure and did not consider it further.^[4:3][5:1]

The operative order declared the petition inadmissible. The decision was reached by nine justices in deliberation on 2 July 2026 and pronounced in open plenary session on 16 July 2026, with Suhartoyo presiding and the petitioner and representatives of the House of Representatives and the President in attendance.^[3:2]

¶ Related decisions and reporting

On the same afternoon the Court also declared inadmissible the petitions in decision 202/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the Criminal Code, decision 203/PUU-XXIV/2026 on non-tax state revenue, decision 205/PUU-XXIV/2026 on narcotics and decision 213/PUU-XXIV/2026 on the Code of Criminal Procedure.^[17] Two weeks later, in decision 246/PUU-XXIV/2026, the Court declared inadmissible as unclear another petition on Undang-Undang 4/1996, concerning the execution of Hak Tanggungan by auction.^[18]

CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 2 October 2026.^[19]

¶ See also

• Constitutional Court Decision 266/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 192/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Notaries' Authority Over Land, Mortgage and Strata Deeds: MK 201/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 2 October 2026)

¶ References