THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT HAS PASSED A DECISION TO REJECT THE PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW ...
Image


THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT HAS PASSED A DECISION TO REJECT THE PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT LAW

The Constitutional Court declared the provision which requires a minimum age of 30 (thirty) years for the candidacy of head of region and deputy head of region, as regulated in Article 58 sub-article d of Law No. 32 Year 2004 regarding Regional Government (the Regional Government Law) as not contradictory to Article 18 Paragraph (4), Article 27 Paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 28C Paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D Paragraph (3), as well as Article 28J Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution.

“Whereas because Article 58 sub-article d of the Regional Government Law is not contradictory to Article 18 Paragraph (4), Article 27 Paragraphs (2) and (3), Article 28C Paragraphs (1) and (2), Article 28D Paragraph (3), as well as Article 28J Paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution, as argued by the Petitioner, thus the Petitioner’s petition must be declared as rejected,” stated the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Prof. Dr. Jimly Asshiddique, S.H. during the hearing for decision of case No. 15/PUU-V/2007 regarding judicial review of the Regional Government Law, (Tuesday, 27/11), at the Constitutional Court’s plenary meeting room.

In the argument of his Petition, the Petitioner, Toar Semuel Tangkau (27), concurrently serving as the Chairperson of the Regional Executive Boardl (DPD) of the Functional Group (Golkar) Party of South East Minahasa Regency regarded Article 58 sub-article d of the a quo Law as contradictory to the 1945 Constitution because it has discriminated young people under 30 years of age having adequate readiness and maturity to become a leader. Due to the aforementioned provision, the Petitioner’s intention to run as a candidate for the Regent of South East Minahasa cannot be realized yet.

With respect to the Petitioner’s argument above, the Court is of several opinions, one of them was that (refer to last Decision Number 19/PUU-V/2007) the fulfillment of the right to obtain equal opportunity in the government does not mean that the state may not regulate and determine the requirements thereof, insofar as such requirements are objectively necessary needs demanded by the governmental position or activity concerned and do not contain any discriminatory elements.

Thus, the question pertaining to the a quo petition is that whether the minimum requirement of 30 years of age in order to become the head of a region or the deputy head of a region, as provided for in Article 58 sub-article d of the Regional Government Law is an objective necessity for the position of head of region or deputy head of region.

In this respect, the Court reaffirms that both governmental position and activity have various forms, and so do the necessities and demanded activities. In relation to the age criterion, the 1945 Constitution does not set a certain minimum age requirement as a general criterion for all government positions or activities. It implies that the 1945 Constitution leaves the certain minimum age requirement for the legislators to determine. In other words, the 1945 Constitution regards the matter as a part of the legislators’ legal policies. Therefore, the minimum age requirements for each respective governmental positions or activities are differently determined in various laws and regulations.

It is possible for the minimum age requirement for the citizens’ participation in certain governmental positions or activities to be revised by the legislators according to the demand of the existing developing necessities. The matter entirely constitutes the authority of the legislators which is not prohibited. In fact, if a law does not mention a certain minimum (or a maximum) age requirement for the citizens to be able to fill a certain governmental position or to partake in a certain governmental activity, and instead delegated such regulation to its subordinate laws and regulations, such a matter would remain the authority of the legislators and would not be contradictory to the 1945 Constitution. (Wiwik Budi Wasito)


Tuesday, November 27, 2007 | 11:53 WIB 254