Law lecturer of the Syafi’iyah Islamic University Abdul Chair Ramadhan testifying as an expert for the House at the material judicial review hearing of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Corruption Eradication Commission, Thursday (4/13/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The age limit requirement in Article 29 letter e of the Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law), which relates to the Petitioner’s interest to run for re-election, cannot be said to be a form of justice in the sense of the absence of rights inequality. Rights equality in the requirements that refer to the same person in casu the Petitioner must be given guarantee for the fulfillment of justice.
The statement was made by law lecturer of the Syafi’iyah Islamic University Abdul Chair Ramadhan, who the House of Representatives (DPR) presented as an expert at the seventh hearing for case No. 112/PUU-XX/2022, which took place on Thursday afternoon, April 13, 2023.
He further said that rights equality in a single person was also related to legal certainty. “Van Apeldoorn stated that legal certainty means that a person will be able to obtain something that is expected under certain circumstances. Certainty is also defined as the clarity of norms so that they can be used as guidelines for the community. This certainty can be interpreted that there is clarity and firmness towards the application of law in society. Referring to Van Apeldoorn’s opinion, the change in the age limit requirement for KPK leaders is contrary to legal certainty,” he explained before Chief Justice Anwar Usman and the other seven constitutional justices.
He believes that the exception in relation to age limit in Law No. 7 of 2020, currently sitting constitutional justices have fulfilled the requirement as referred to in Article 15 paragraph (2) letter d: at least fifty years old. The exception in Article 87 letter b was granted to one constitutional justice who had not met the minimum age requirement as referred to in Article 15 paragraph (2) letter d and is therefore considered eligible.
On the other hand, he added, in the second amendment to the KPK Law, such an exception is not found. Such an exception applies to sitting constitutional justices, but not to incumbent KPK leaders. This is discriminatory. “It is said [to be discriminatory] because the exception is not applied properly. The application of a different exception is a form of ‘differentiating the same.’ This condition is an injustice,” he said.
Expansion of Age Limit for KPK Leaders
Abdul Chair also emphasized that the expansion of the age limit from forty to fifty years as a requirement for KPK leaders as stipulated in 29 letter e of the second amendment to the KPK Law factually only applies to the Petitioner. The absence of an exception on constitutional justices shows the legislatures’ deliberateness regardless of various reasons for increasing the minimum age. An “exception” should have been imposed in the second amendment to the KPK Law. The differential treatment between constitutional justices and KPK leaders on the exception shows a deviation of justice as material in a rule of law,” he explained.
The absence of an exception in the second amendment to the KPK Law shows that the legislatures reduced the Petitioner’s rights while expanding that of others, leading to factual loss of the Petitioner’s constitutional rights and/or authority. Justice was not applied.
Petitioner’s Loss of Rights/Authority
Abdul Chair stressed that Article 29 letter e of the second amendment to the KPK Law contains uncertainty and injustice. It has directly or indirectly harmed the Petitioner’s rights and/or authority.
The change to the requirement, he alleged, was not by accident. The legislatures had done it on purpose, he said. This has a causal relation to the Petitioner’s constitutional impairment. Not to mention, the loss is not just potential, but is specific and actual.
It is undeniable that the provisions of law can be applied differently but must not conflict with legal norms above it. The legal norms above it are none other than for public benefit as contained in the Constitution.
Abdul Chair Ramadhan said the change to the requirement, which has harmed the Petitioner’s constitutional rights and/or authority, must be corrected. In such a concept of corrective justice, justice severs as a middle ground between loss and gain. Judges become the choice when problems occur, because they are expected to restore balance through fair decisions. Fair action is a middle ground between acting unfairly and suffering injustice. Corrective justice is justice that aims to correct unfair events.
Correction of injustice is done by returning to the previous stance. In the a quo case, correction can be made by returning the minimum age limit to the Law No. 30 of 2002 on the KPK, he emphasized.
Also read:
Nurul Ghufron Challenges Provision on Age Limit of KPK Leaders
Nurul Ghufron Revises Petition against Provision on Age Limit of KPK Leaders
Age Requirement for KPK Leaders an Administrative Code
Govt: Age Requirement for KPK Leaders Necessary
Expert: Tenure of KPK Commissioners against Legal Ideal
Provisions on Age Limit Needs Rational Reasons
Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) deputy chairman Nurul Ghufron, who filed the petition No. 112/PUU-XX/2022, was appointed after meeting the qualifications based on Law No. 30 of 2002, or the first KPK Law. However, the enactment of Article 29 letter (e) of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission has reduced his constitutional rights. It originally required that a KPK leader be at least 40 years old and 65 years old at most. After the amendment, the age limit is at least 50 years and 65 years at most, thus restricting the Petitioner, who is not yet 50 years old, from seeking appointment for the second term. This, he argues, is contradictory to Article 34 of Law No. 30 of 2002.
In his petition, the Petitioner argued that he had been restricted from seeking re-appointment as a KPK leader. He believes the age limit for government positions necessitates maturity. Thus, he believes that a person who has experience in a position must also be deemed “legally qualified” to fill that vacancy. He argues that he has lost his right to equality in government, to fair legal certainty and equality before the law, and to obtain a job with fair treatment, due to the enactment of Article 29 letter (e) of the KPK Law. He requested that the Court declare the article conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as there is no condition “having experience as a KPK leader.”
Author : Utami Argawati
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayudhita
Translator : Yuniar Widiastuti (NL)
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.
Friday, April 14, 2023 | 03:58 WIB 199