The Constitutional Court’s media personnel covering the judicial review hearing of case No. 1/PUU-XX/2022, Wednesday (1/12/2022). Photo by Humas MK/Ilham W. M.

---

Thursday, January 13, 2022 | 07:58 WIB

JAKARTA, Public Relations—The age requirement for KPU (General Elections Commission) and Bawaslu (Elections Supervisory Body) members as regulated in Article 21 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 117 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections was challenged. Both articles require that a KPU member be at least 40 years old.

Advocate Musa Darwin Pane, the Petitioner in case No. 1/PUU-XX/2022, believes that those articles have impaired the principle of equality before the law. At a hearing on Wednesday, January 12, 2022, Sahat Maruli T. Situmeang, one of his legal counsels, asserted that those articles had violated the Petitioner’s constitutional right.

“Because when the Petitioner entered the KPU member selection, Article 11 letter b and Article 85 letter b of Law No. 15 of 2004 stressed that the age limit for candidates of KPU RI and Bawaslu RI [members] are at least 35 years old for the central KPU and/or Bawaslu, while at the province and regency/city at least 30 years old. Therefore, the articles are discriminatory,” Situmeang said to the bench led by Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra.

The Petitioner entered the selection of the KPU RI members for 2022-2027, proven by the registration receipt CP-KPU-00306, which is directly correlated with Law No. 15 of 2011 on the Implementation of the General Elections and Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, especially the two articles petitioned for review.

“The provision of Article 21 paragraph (1) letter b and Article 117 paragraph (1) letter b of the Election Law is discriminatory, so it restricted the Petitioner’s constitutional right to be acknowledged as an individual before the law [and] as an academic and professional under 40 years to become KPU and Bawaslu member. Meanwhile, the age limit of 35 years for KPU and/or Bawaslu member candidates has been reviewed based on the Constitutional Court Decision No. 102/PUU-XIV/2016 dated March 12, 2017, where the age limit of at least 35 years old for KPU and/or Bawaslu [members] is constitutional. However, the Government, in this case the president and the House/DPR changed it to 40 years in the Election Law,” said Andreas Situmeang, another legal counsel.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 21 paragraph (1) letter b of the Election Law along the phrase “during registration is at least 40 years of age for KPU candidate, at least 35 years of age for provincial KPU candidate, and at least 30 years of age for regency/city KPU candidate” unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as “during registration is at least 25 years of age for a KPU candidate, at least 30 years of age for a provincial KPU candidate, and at least 30 years of age for a regency/city KPU candidate.”

“[The Petitioner requests that the Court] declare Article 117 paragraph (1) letter b of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, the State Gazette No. 182 of 2017 along the phrases ‘during registration is at least 40 years of age for KPU candidate, at least 35 years of age for provincial KPU candidate, and at least 30 years of age for regency/city KPU candidate’ and ‘at least 25 years of age for a candidate of subdistrict panwaslu, kelurahan or village panwaslu, and TPS supervisor’ unconstitutional and not legally binding insofar as not interpreted as ‘during registration is at least 30 years of age for KPU candidate, at least 25 years of age for provincial KPU candidate, and at least 20 years of age for regency/city KPU candidate,’” Andreas Situmeang stressed.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra asked the Petitioner to include the latest Constitutional Court Law because in the part on the Court’s jurisdiction the Petitioners mentioned Law No. 8 of 2011 on the Constitutional Court. He also requested that the Petitioner elaborate his constitutional impairment.

“Explain your constitutional impairment, referring to the articles in the 1945 Constitution [that suggest] that your constitutional rights are violated by the enactment of the a quo norms. Explain your constitutional impairment by using your experience of having been rejected due to not meeting a requirement to enter the selection as a KPU member,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams highlighted the petitum. “In short, you wish that all age limits to be a KPU member are reduced by five years. For example, in Article 117 from 40 to 35 years. You must explain the reason. You can’t just ask them be reduced. Provide reasoning so that it is explained in your posita,” he said.

Next, Constitutional Justice Manahan M. P. Sitompul observed the legal standing. “It should be emphasized which way you are filing this petition. If it’s on behalf of a foundation, elaborate what the loss, what field it works in, whether in society, education, and so on. What is the constitutional impairment? All that must be elaborated,” he said.

He also said that the touchstones—Article 28C paragraph (2), Article 28D paragraph (1), Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution—should also be elaborated so that it would show the contrast with the articles being petitioned.

Writer        : Nano Tresna Arfana
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Fitri Yuliana
Translator  : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)

Translation uploaded on 01/13/2022 15:47 WIB

Disclaimer: The original version of the news is in Indonesian. In case of any differences between the English and the Indonesian versions, the Indonesian version will prevail.

---