Sukirno as Principal Petitioner of the judicial review of the Village Law, Tuesday (12/12) at the Constitutional Court Building. Photo by Humas MK/Ganie.

The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected entirely the petition of age limit requirement for village apparatus. The Decision No. 65/PUU-XV/2017 was read by Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Arief Hidayat, in the hearing held on Tuesday (12/12) in the Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

Sukirno, a resident of Sidasari Village, Sampang Subdistrict, Cilacap Regency as Petitioner reviewed Article 50 Paragraph (1) letter b of the Village Law. The a quo provision 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 argued 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 was still within the productive category and intends to work as a village apparatus.

In the legal considerations read by Constitutional Justice Maria Farida Indrati, the Court is of the opinion that the village apparatus as intended by the Village Law is an apparatus appointed by the village head after consultation with the sub-district head on behalf of the Regent/Mayor to assist the village head in administering the Village Government. Thus, according to the Court, it is natural that the Village Law regulates some requirements for a person to be appointed as a village apparatus. The requirement to be village apparatus questioned by the Petitioner is the age limit requirement stipulated in Article 50 paragraph (1) letter b of the Village Law that to be appointed as village apparatus, a villager must meet the age requirement of minimum 20 years and maximum 42 years. With regard to the regulation in the law regarding age limit for certain positions or functions in government, the Court is of the opinion that no provision concerning age requirement can be equated to the age requirement of village apparatus candidates as regulated by the a quo norm.

Justice Maria asserted that a regulation is discriminatory if the law gives different treatment based solely on race, ethnicity, religion, economic status, and other social status as meant by the definition of discrimination in Article 1 number 3 of Law No. 39/1999 on Human Rights, so different arrangements cannot necessarily be deemed discriminatory. "Based on the above consideration, the Petitioner’s argument concerning Article 50 paragraph (1) letter b of the Village Law is unreasonable according to the law," said Justice Maria. (Lulu Anjarsari/Yuniar Widiastuti)