Age of the original constitutional judges least 40 (forty) years to 47 (forty seven) years and the retirement age was originally 67 (sixty seven) years to 70 (seventy) years assessed discrimination by former Registrar of Constitutional Court (MK) Zainal Arifin Hoesien and former Court staff Andi Muhammad Asrun as the Petitioners Case No. 7/PUU-XI/2013. Because, the article that determines the term of office is potentially detrimental to the Petitioners as a constitutional judge.

"We judge that the provision has the potential to harm our tested when a judge constitution," said Asrun the hearing the review of Act 8/2011 on Amendments to Act 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court held in Room Plenary Court on Friday (18/1). This panel session is chaired by Constitutional Judge Anwar Usman, accompanied by Maria Farida Indrati and Ahmad Fadlil Sumadi, respectively as members.

This view appears, says the applicant, when the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court as both institutions have the same judiciary that judges retirement age of 70 (seventy) years, but differ in terms of the appointment. In this case, the petitioners said, if the Supreme Court actually held up to the age of 70 (seventy) years, but the judge is not constitutional. Candidates constitutional judges that he was more than 65 (sixty-seven) years, he could not proposed to be appointed as judges of the constitution.

Therefore, the provisions of Article 15 paragraph (2) letter d Act, said, "Aged least 47 (forty-seven) years and a maximum of 65 (sixty-five) years old at the time of the appointment," said the petitioners in petitum, conditional opposed to the 1945 extent not understood aged at least 47 (forty-seven) years and a maximum of 65 (sixty-five) years old at the time of the first appointment.

"Declare Article 15 paragraph (2), more becomes," To be appointed as a judge constitution, but must meet the requirements as referred to in paragraph (1), a constitutional judge candidate is required to: ... d. minimum age 47 (forty-seven) years and a maximum of 65 (sixty-five) years old at the time of the first appointment," explained Asrun when reading the petition request.

After outlining the petition of the Petitioner, trial counsel continued to listen to the advice of constitutional judges in accordance with the obligations provided for in the legislation. Fadlil Sumadi provided advice on the issue of legal standing (right to sue) the Applicant specified in the request is not yet clear. "Right you are harmed or authority of Article 15 paragraph (1) as to what" asked Fadlil to the applicant without an escort or a power law.

Regarding the principal issue, said Fadlil, Petitioners’ petition was pretty good but it is not very clear constitutional losses or ties with the provisions of the Petitioners who are tested are not included in the petition. "Petition of the Petitioners is pretty good, but less’ sharp," said Fadlil.

Maria Farida also confirms what was delivered by Fadlil related to the legal standing of the Petitioners. According to him, the petitioners have not explained the constitutional harm to the test of Article 15 paragraph (1). Because the Petitioners themselves, said Maria Farida, not registered as a candidate for judge of the constitution. "Is it true you have any legal standing," said Maria Farida. "We are very thank you to the inputs to strengthen the application. We are very concerned to fix this petition, we hope the petition is granted because the Constitutional Court," said Asrun responding advices given by the Constitutional Assembly. (Shohibul Umam / mh)