Constitutional Court Decision 203/PUU-XXIV/2026 is a 2026 ruling of the Constitutional Court of Indonesia that declared inadmissible a petition for material review of two provisions of Undang-Undang 9/2018 on non-tax state revenue (Penerimaan Negara Bukan Pajak, PNBP): the words allowing the types of non-tax revenue to be set by government or ministerial regulation, and the provision under which the tariffs for revenue from services are set in the same way.^[1][2] The petition was brought by a notary objecting to the fee charged for extending a notary's term of office, and the case belongs to the field of public finance and non-tax revenue in Indonesia.^[3]

The Court held that the petition was vague (tidak jelas atau kabur, or obscuur), because it tested the statute partly against another statute rather than the Constitution, and because the relief sought would have created legal uncertainty or asked the Court to make new rules. It did not rule on the petitioner's standing or on the merits.^[4][2:1]

The Court treated the fees payable by notaries as set by Peraturan Pemerintah 45/2024. On 2 July 2026, two weeks before the decision was pronounced, the government issued Peraturan Pemerintah 30/2026, which revoked that regulation's tariffs for legal services and set notary fees afresh.^[4:1][5]

¶ Background and petition

Pasal 4 ayat (3) of Undang-Undang 9/2018 provides that the types of non-tax revenue are set by statute, government regulation and/or ministerial regulation, and Pasal 8 ayat (3) provides that the tariffs for non-tax revenue from services are set by government regulation and/or ministerial regulation.^[6][7] The petition challenged the words "government regulation and/or ministerial regulation" in the first provision and the whole of the second.^[1:1]

The petitioner, a serving notary, relied on Constitutional Court Decision 84/PUU-XXII/2024, which in his account allows a notary's term to be extended year by year up to the age of 70 on proof of physical and mental health. He stated that each extension carried a non-tax revenue charge of Rp 7.5 million in his case, and Rp 40 million and Rp 15 million for notaries in Category A and Category B work areas under the ministerial classification of notary work areas, and argued that charges of that size for one year of service were unfair and discriminatory compared with other state services.^[3:1] His constitutional argument was that non-tax revenue is state money, since Pasal 20 of the statute requires all of it to be managed within the state budget, so that Pasal 23C of the Constitution, which reserves "other matters concerning state finances" to statute, requires its types and tariffs to be set by statute rather than delegated. He invoked Pasal 23A, 23C, 28D(1) and 28I(2) of the Constitution, and also Pasal 7 of the law-making statute, Undang-Undang 12/2011, as an implementation of the Constitution's provisions on legislation.^[3:2]

The petition was registered on 8 June 2026. At the preliminary hearing on 18 June 2026 the Court advised the petitioner to improve the sections on its authority, his standing, the grounds and the relief sought; a revised petition was received online on 28 June 2026 and in writing on 1 July 2026.^[8][9] The Court decided the case on the petition and the petitioner's evidence, without hearing the House of Representatives or the President.^[8:1]

¶ Ruling

The Court held that it had jurisdiction, and then examined the formal requirements of the petition before turning to standing. It found that the revised petition followed the format required by Pasal 31 ayat (1) of the Constitutional Court Law and Pasal 10 ayat (3) of Constitutional Court Regulation 7/2025 on procedure in judicial review cases, but stated that it assesses not only the format but also whether the content of each part is complete and precise.^[9:1]

On that assessment it found two defects. First, one of the standards against which the petitioner tested the provisions was Pasal 7 ayat (2) of Undang-Undang 12/2011, whereas in a constitutional review a statute must be tested against the 1945 Constitution, as Pasal 2 ayat (5) of the 2025 procedural regulation provides. Second, the relief sought did not fit Pasal 51A ayat (5) of the Constitutional Court Law or Pasal 68 of the procedural regulation. Deleting the challenged words and the whole of Pasal 8 ayat (3), the Court reasoned, would leave Peraturan Pemerintah 45/2024, which sets the types and tariffs of non-tax revenue of the then Ministry of Law and Human Rights, without a basis in the statute and so void, creating a legal vacuum in the fees payable by notaries and uncertainty in tariffs generally. A further request, that notary tariffs be set at 50 per cent for Categories A, B and C, or by agreement between the government and notaries through their regional boards, until a new statute was enacted, was held unusual because it sought neither the annulment nor the interpretation of a challenged norm but new rule-making outside the statute.^[4:2]

The Court concluded that the petition was vague and would not be considered further, and the operative order declared it inadmissible.^[4:3][2:2] The decision was reached by nine justices in deliberation on 2 July 2026 and pronounced on 16 July 2026, with Suhartoyo presiding.^[2:3]

¶ Relationship to other instruments

The decision leaves Pasal 4 ayat (3) and Pasal 8 ayat (3) of Undang-Undang 9/2018 unchanged; it does not mention PP 30/2026, signed and promulgated on 2 July 2026, the day of the deliberation.^[2:4][5:1] That regulation revoked the types and tariffs set in Peraturan Pemerintah 45/2024 for legal services, among others, with effect thirty days after its promulgation. Its annex sets the tariff for extending a notary's term at Rp 40 million, Rp 15 million and Rp 7.5 million per person for Category A, B and C areas, and lists a separate tariff of Rp 40 million per person per year for extending the term of notaries aged 67 to 70.^[5:2][10]

The case was one of several 2026 petitions that the Court declared inadmissible for vagueness, surveyed at constitutional review in Indonesia. CRPG's regulatory tracker published an account of the decision on 1 October 2026.^[11]

¶ See also

• Constitutional Court Decision 40/PUU-XXIV/2026
• Constitutional Court Decision 264/PUU-XXIV/2026

¶ External links

• Decision (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• Case record (Mahkamah Konstitusi)
• CRPG: Notary Challenge to Non-Tax Revenue Rate-Setting Powers: MK 203/PUU-XXIV/2026 (crpg.id, 1 October 2026)

¶ References