---

Principal Petitioners Dara Adinda Kesuma Nasution and Tsamara Amany in the ruling hearing of the judicial review hearing of the Pilkada Law, Wednesday (11/12) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petition of Law Number 1 of 2015 on the Establishment of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law as last amended by Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law Number 1 of 2015 on the Establishment of Government Regulations in Lieu of Law of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law) into Law.

“The verdict adjudicated, rejects the Petitioners’ petition for its entirety,” said plenary chairman Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman with the other constitutional justices in the pronouncement of the Decision No. 57/PUU-XVII/2019, Wednesday (11/12/2019) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The petition of material review of the Pilkada Law was filed by young politicians Faldo Maldini, Tsamara Amany, Dara Adinda Kesuma Nasution, and Cakra Yudi Putra, who intended to run for regional heads in 2020 and 2022. Faldo Maldini is an Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI) member who has prepared to run for West Sumatera Province gubernatorial election in 2020. Tsamara Amany from PSI and Cakra Yudi Putra from the Indonesian Justice and Unity Party (PKPI) have prepared to run for DKI Jakarta gubernatorial election in 2022. Dara Adinda Kesuma Nasution from PSI has prepared to run for Pematangsiantar Mayoral election in 2020.

The Petitioners challenged Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e of the Pilkada Law that reads, "Candidates for Governor and Candidates for Deputy Governor, Candidates for Regent and Candidates for Deputy Regent, and Candidates for Mayor and Candidates for Deputy Mayor as referred to in paragraph (1) shall meet the following requirements: ... e. be at least 30 (thirty) years old for Candidates for Governor and Candidates for Deputy Governor, and 25 (twenty-five) years old for Candidates for Regent and Candidates for Deputy Regent and Candidates for Mayor and Candidate for Deputy Mayor."

The provisions on the age limit of regional head candidates obstruct the Petitioners’ rights, as representatives of the younger generation, to run in the regional election. According to the Petitioners, it contradicts Article 18 paragraph (4), Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (3), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution.

The Petitioners believe that the provisions reduce the meaning of democratic elections in accordance with the 1945 Constitution. In addition, they are unconstitutional because they do not provide equal treatment before the law and are discriminatory. The assumption that someone under the age of 25 years is unable to serve as a regional head and is not able to lead as capably as older persons is an incorrect assumption. Any adult who is physically and mentally healthy shall have the right to be elected.

Authority of Lawmakers

The Court did not find any constitutionality issue of the age limit and different age limits due to difference in the natures of the offices, because it is the prerogative of lawmakers. The Court also affirmed that should the age limit was not regulated in legislation but in regulations, it would not be unconstitutional. "The Court is of the opinion that there is no fundamental reason in the development of state administration that causes the Court to inevitably have to change its stance. This has also been confirmed in the Constitutional Court Decision Number 15/PUU-V/2007," said Constitutional Justice I Dewa Gede Palguna, who read out the opinion of the Court.

Fulfillment of the right to equality of treatment before the law and government, guaranteed by the Constitution, in relation to running for certain office does not mean removing the requirements or restrictions that are rationally required by the position. Such restrictions are in line with Article 28J paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. "The Court is of the opinion that the petition of the Petitioners regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e of the Regional Election Law is legally groundless," said Justice Palguna. (Nano Tresna Arfana/NRA)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti

---