Titi Anggraini dan Dian Kartikasari of the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) as Principal Petitioners with attorney Fadli Ramadhanil in the plenary ruling hearing of the judicial review of the Regional Election Law, Wednesday (29/1) in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court. Photo by Humas MK/Gani.

JAKARTA, Public Relations of the Constitutional Court—The petition filed by the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem) and the Indonesian Women\'s Coalition (KPI) regarding marital status as voting requirement was rejected by the Constitutional Court (MK). The Decision No. 75/PUU-XVII/2019 was read out by Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman along with the other eight constitutional justices on Wednesday (29/1/2020)in the Plenary Courtroom of the Constitutional Court.

The Petitioners requested the review of f Law Number 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors (Pilkada Law) Article 1 number 6 phrase "or are/were married." They argued that the a quo article, especially the phrase "or are/were married," has led to injustice for citizens registered as voters even though the principle of fairness in the regional elections provides equal opportunity for citizens to be registered as voters. By being registered as voters, citizens can also make their political choices when electing regional heads. For the Petitioners, the phrase "or are/were married" shows that marriage is seen as an indicator of maturity, therefore allowing married persons to vote.

The Petitioners believed that the Constitutional Court Decision No. 22/PUUXV/2017 and the amendment to the Marriage Law through Law Number 16 of 2019 had resulted in the a quo provision along the phrase "or are/were married" causing injustice in voter registration, which is contrary to the electoral principles guaranteed by Article 22E paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. However, the enactment of the a quo law causes legal uncertainty in relation to the age of maturity of a citizen as well as the legal age for voters when, in fact, a Constitutional Court Decision forbids discrimination of legal marriage age between men and women. The legal marriage age of 18 also shows that a citizen is no longer a minor, as stipulated in the Child Protection Law. Thus, the Petitioners believed that to eliminate discrimination against children due to marital status, the phrase "or are/were married" must be declared unconstitutional. 

Following Population Administration Law 

The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that Article 63 paragraph (1) of Law Number 23 of 2006 concerning Population Administration states that "Indonesian Citizens and Foreigners with Fixed Stay Permits, who are 17 (seventeen) years of age and who are married or have been married, must have a KTP." Justice Suhartoyo, who read out the legal considerations, explained that Indonesian citizens who already had a KTP (ID), even though they are not yet 17 years old, but are married or have been married, have the right to vote and can register as voters according to the Population Administration Law.

"Such a requirement [is constitutional] insofar as [they] meet other requirements specified in Article 57 paragraph (3) of Law 10/2016, that they are not mentally impaired and/or their voting rights are not revoked based on court decisions that have permanent legal force. Ownership of KTP for one who is not yet 17 years old but is married or has been married [is valid] because the person concerned is considered an adult. The provision on the requirement of maturity by the phrase \'are/were married\' is also contained in various statutory regulations," Justice Suhartoyo explained. 

Justice Suhartoyo also added that even though someone is not yet 17 years old but is/was married means that the person concerned is considered an adult. "In principle, a person who is considered an adult is considered capable of carrying out legal actions and is responsible for these actions, including in this case, legal actions to determine [their] choices in elections," he explained. He also explained the Petitioners\' argument that the provision being discriminating is false. (Lulu Anjarsari)

Translated by: Yuniar Widiastuti