The case which was registered on Thursday June 14, 2007 with number 15/PUU-V/2007 was filed by Toar Semuel Tangkau, 27 years of age, the Chairperson of the Regional Representative Council of the Functional Group Party of Southeast Minahasa Regency, North Sulawesi planning to nominate himself as the Regent of Southeast Minahasa.
Through his attorney from the Legal Aid Center of the Faculty of Law of the Indonesian Christian University, the Petitioner asked the Panel of Constitutional Justices to declare that the substance of Article 58 Sub Article d of the Regional Government Law is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and that the substance of the aforementioned article has no binding legal force.
The Petitioner considered that the law, particularly Article 58 Sub Article d requiring the minimum age of 30 to be a candidates for regional head and deputy head is contradictory to the 1945 Constitution and inconsistent with the constitutional mandate. The Petitioner also considered that such limitation has been discriminatory to the young generation because the provision has closed the opportunity and chance for the young generation particularly the Petitioner to become a leader. According to the Petitioner, Article 18 Paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution has in fact, opened an extensive opportunity for all citizens to be elected as the regional head and deputy head provided that the election is exercised democratically.
âThe maturity of a leader should not be measured by his/her age but by his/her intellectual and emotional intelligence,â argued the Petitioner.
Responding to the petition, Constitutional Justice, Prof. A. Mukthie Fadjar, SH., MS., asked about the purpose of the Petitioner in filing the petition for judicial review considering that if the judicial review is granted, the age limitation for those intending to be the regional head candidates will be eliminated. The Justice Mukthie also reminded that the 1945 Constitution does not provide age limitation as a form of discrimination. Therefore, Justice Mukthie suggested the Petitioner to provide a solid ground for his petition.
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice, Soedarsono, SH. advised the Petitioner to provide a stronger legal standing for his petition. âIf the legal standing does not meet the requirements, the court cannot proceed with the examination of the principal issue of the petition, âhe reminded.
In response to the suggestion from the Justices, the Petitioner stated that he accepted the suggestion and would revise his petition. The Panel of Justices gave 14-day period for the revision of the petition. âThe sooner the betterâ, Soedarsono said before adjourning the hearing. (Ardli)