Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (left) chairing the panel alongside Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (right) at the judicial review hearing of the Constitutional Court Law, Wednesday (9/6/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held another material judicial review hearing of Article 15 paragraph (2) letter d of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court. The case No. 81/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by Fahri Bachmid, law lecturer at the Muslim University of Indonesia, Makassar.

At the petition revision hearing, legal counsel Viktor S. Tandiasa conveyed the revisions to the petition following the justices’ advice at the preliminary hearing. The Petitioner had not managed to find the document of the Constitutional Court Bill, which the justices requested. Therefore, he attached a news article by Kompas to support his argument.

The Petitioner had also affirmed his legal standing as a citizen who intends to apply as a prospective constitutional justice in the future. at the moment, Tandiasa said, the Petitioner is 46 years old. Meanwhile, prior to amendment, the Constitutional Court Law had set the minimum age of 47 years for prospective constitutional justices. However, the change to the limit to 55 years has prolonged the waiting period for the Petitioner to apply.

“The minimum age limit from 47 to 55 years has made a distance to the Petitioner’s opportunity. At the moment, he is 46 years old. He would have been able to apply next year [under the Law pre-amendment], but since the minimum age has been changed to 55 years, it will take longer. The change has harmed the Petitioner [and kept him from] applying as a prospective constitutional justice,” Tandiasa said on Wednesday, September 6, 2023 before Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and M. Guntur Hamzah.

The Petitioner had also added a table of comparison between the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 90/PUU-XVIII/2020 and No. 100/ PUU-XVIII/2020, where the Court held that the Petitioners did not have legal standing, thus it did not consider the subject matter. Therefore, the current petition has met the exception requirement.

Also read: Minimum Age for Constitutional Justices Challenged

The Petitioner alleges that the change to the minimum age for prospective constitutional justices has obviously and clearly led to legal uncertainty for the Petitioner, who would have to wait for longer to apply for the selection of constitutional justices. This constitutional right is guaranteed by Article 28D paragraph (1) and Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. He also mentioned changes that had been made on the minimum age for prospective constitutional justices. He requested that the Court declare the phrase “is 55 (fifty-five) years old at the minimum” in Article 15 paragraph (2) letter d of the Constitutional Court Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if interpreted otherwise is explicitly stated in the a quo norm.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
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.

---