Law Number 32 of 2004 concerning Regional Government (the Regional Government Law) requires a person intending to run for the post of head of region or deputy head of region to be 30 years of age. However, such requirement is deemed contradictory to the 1945 Constitution because it is discriminatory against people who have not reached the age of 30 years but have been ready and mature to serve as leaders. Due to such provision, Toar Semuel Tangkau (27 years) had to abandon his ambition to run for the post of Southeast Minahasa Regent.

In order to achieve his goal, Toar, who is also the Chairperson of the Regional Executive Board of Golkar Party of Southeast Minahasa Regency, has filed a petition for junidicial review of Article 58 sub-article (d) of the Regional Government Law against the 1945 Constitution to the Constitutional Court.

In the hearing held on Wednesday (25/7) at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta, Duma Burang who was acting as Toar’s attorney submitted revision to the petition of judicial review based on the advice and inputs given in the hearing held previously (3/7) by the Panel of Constitutional Justices, chaired by Soedarsono, S.H. In addition to a request to the Panel of Constitutional Justices to declare that the aforementioned provision does not have binding legal force, the petitioner also asks the Panel to iinclude a minimum age of 25 years for running for the post of the head of region in the legal considerations.

As the basis for his request, the petitioner refers to a provision in the Civil Code stating that a person is considered mature adult if he has reached the age of 21 years. In fact, according to the Marriage Law, a person is considered a mature adult and allowed to marry if he has reached the age of 18 years. Therefore, the petitioner asks the Panel of Constitutional Justices to grant his petition in its entirety and to declare that the provision of Article 58 sub-article (d) of Law Number 32 of 2004 is contradictory to Article 18 Paragraph (4), Article 27 Paragraphs (2) and (3), 28C Paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D Paragraph (3), Article 28J Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution and to declare that the provision set forth in the aforementioned articles do not have any binding legal force. 

Responding to the petition,  member of the Panel of Justices, Prof. A. Mukthie Fadjar, S.H., M.S. reminded the petitioner that the Constitutional Court cannot replace or change provisions formulated in an article of a law. According to Mukthie Fadjar, the Constitutional Court only has the authority to delete or to declare an article as not having binding legal force.

After approving evidence comprising only copies of Law Number 32 of 2004 concerning Regional Government and the 1945 Consitution as well as the petitioner’s identification card, the Chairperson of the Panel of Justices, Soedarsono, S.H. said that the Panel will report the petition to a Plennary Meeting of Constitutional Justices. “The result will depend on the decision made in the Plennary Meeting of Constitutional Justices,” he said before adjourning the hearing. [ardli]