Sukirno as Principal Petitioner during revision hearing of the judicial review of Village Law on Monday (2/10) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Ifa.

Sukirno, a resident of Sidasari Village, Sampang Subdistrict, Cilacap Regency, revised the petition for the judicial review of age restriction rule to become a village apparatus in Law No. 6 of 2016 on Village (Village Law). The second hearing of the petition No. 65/PUU-XV/2017 was held on Monday (2/10) in the Plenary Hall of the Constitutional Court.

In a hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati, Sukirno explained that he had improved the petition in accordance with the advice of the panel of justices in the previous session. He strengthened the arguments related to his legal standing. In addition, the Petitioner also attached the categorization of productive age.

The Petitioner, who was present without attorney, requested a review of Article 50 Paragraph (1) letter b of the Village Law which states:

"Village Devices as referred to in Article 48 shall be appointed from villagers who meet the following requirements:

a. ......;

b. aged 20 (twenty) years up to 42 (forty-two) years;

Sukirno felt his constitutional rights were violated by the enactment of these provisions. He said the article prevented him from applying for village apparatus because he was 10 months past the age limit in the Village Law. In his petition, the he argues that Article 50 paragraph (1) letter b of the Village Law restricts, imposes restrictions, and does not provide equal opportunity to the Petitioner. In fact, he continued, he is still within the productive category and intends to work as a village apparatus. Based on productive age category established by Central Statistics Agency (BPS), productive age group is the age group capable of producing products or services, and in the age range of 15 to 64 years old.

In addition, the Petitioner elaborated that he understands the consideration of the limits of physical and psychological abilities needed to become a village apparatus, who will provide quality services to the public. However, the Petitioner considered that the age limit should be interpreted as a limit of a person’s physical conditions where he/she can no longer provide services and must stop from his/her work or profession. The Petitioner also argued that the Government should also synchronize the age limits of other administrative administration professions, such as State Civil Apparatus (ASN).

Sukirno explained, philosophically, there was no reason to discriminate the age limit of administrative officials. On the contrary, he explained, the Government should open various possibilities for its citizens to be able to work, including in village administration. According to the Petitioner, sociologically, the Government had not been able to provide employment for its citizens based on the age group system, especially in the current demographic situation up to 20-30 years ahead. Then, juridically, age limitation for a person to run for an organizer of a particular profession shall be made reasonable and rational in such a way, without diminishing the Government’s constitutional obligation to respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights of its citizens. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)