Legal counsel of Petitioner of case No. 104/PUU-XXI/2023, Donny Tri Istiqomah, questioning the age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, Tuesday (9/19/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) – Provisions on the age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates in Law No 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) are being challenged again to the Constitutional Court (MK). Previous cases have challenged the minimum age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, but advocate Gulfino Guevarrato challenges the maximum age limit, which is not regulated in the Election Law.

The preliminary hearing on Monday, September 19, 2023 was chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, with two cases being reviewed: No. 102/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by Rio Saputro, Wiwit Ariyanto, and Rahayu Fatika Sari, and No. 104/PUU-XXI/2023, filed by Gulfino Guevarrato. The Petitioners of case No. 102/PUU-XXI/2023 believe their constitutional rights have been harmed by the enactment of Article 169 letter d and letter q, while the Petitioner of Case No. 104/PUU-XXI/2023 challenges the constitutionality of Article 169 letter n and letter q.

Article 169 letters d, n, and q of the Election Law reads:

“Requirements that must be fulfilled by a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate are as follows:

d. having never committed any act of treason against the state, and having never committed any acts of corruption or other serious crimes;

n. having not served as a president or vice president for 2 (two) tenures in the same position.

q. at least 40 (forty) years of age.”

At the hearing, Anang Suindro, the legal counsel in case No. 102/PUU-XXI/2023, said Indonesia must be led by a president and vice president who do not allegedly have a record of violations, such as violating human rights (HAM), abducting activists, causing loss of lives, taking actions that are contradictory to democracy, and committing serious criminal acts.

“Article 169 of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections as last amended by the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2022 on General Elections has regulated the requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, that is, having never committed any act of treason against the state and having never committed any acts of corruption or other serious crimes,” he explained.

Anang emphasized that the phrase “having never committed any act of treason against the state and having never committed any acts of corruption or other serious crimes” in Article 169 letter d of the Election Law is vague, thus not fulfilling the principle of legal certainty.

“For prevention and anticipation, requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates in Article 169 letter d must be regulated and stipulated as ‘having never committed any act of treason against the state, and having never committed any acts of corruption or other serious crimes’ must also be interpreted as ‘having never committed any act of treason against the state and having never committed any acts of corruption, having no record of committing human rights violations, abduction of activists, forced disappearance, having never committed crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and anti-democratic acts, and other serious crimes,’” Anang asserted.

Therefore, in their petitum, the Petitioners ask the Constitutional Court to declare Article 169 letter d of the Election Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted as “having never committed any act of treason against the state, having never committed any acts of corruption, having no record of committing human rights violations, having not involved in and/or being part of abduction of activists in 1998, having not involved in and/or being an actor of forced disappearance, having never committed any crimes of genocide, having not involved in and/or being an actor of any crimes against humanity and anti-democratic acts, and other serious crimes,” and to declare Article 169 letter q of the Election Law conditionally unconstitutional and not legally binding as long as it is not interpreted as “at least 40 (forty) years old and at most 70 (seventy) years old in the election process.”

Maximum Age Limit

Meanwhile, through legal counsel Donny Tri Istiqomah, the Petitioner of case No. 104/PUU-XXI/2023 requested that the age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates be within productive age—21 to 65. Similar to the Petitioners of case No. 102/PUU-XXI/2023, he also argued that Article 169 letter d of the Election Law is vague, thus not fulfilling the principle of legal certainty.

The Petitioner also asked the Constitutional Court to declare the article unconstitutional if it is not interpreted as “having never committed any act of treason against the state, having never committed any acts of corruption, having no record of committing human rights violations, having not involved in and/or being part of abduction of activists in 1998, having not involved in and/or being an actor of forced disappearance, having never committed any crimes of genocide, having not involved in and/or being an actor of any crimes against humanity and anti-democratic acts, and other serious crimes.”

Lastly, in relation to Article 169 letter n of the Election Law, the Petitioner sees the need for another requirement that limit presidential and vice-presidential candidacy. He argued that it is important for each candidate to have political ethics and statesmanship so that if they are not elected after running twice, they can no longer run in the next election. Therefore, in the petition, the Petitioner asked the Constitutional Court to declare the article unconstitutional if not interpreted as “having never served as a president or a vice president for two terms in the same position and having never run for president or vice president two times for the same position.”

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh said that the legal standing of the individual petitioners, especially the argument of constitutional loss, needs to be strengthened.

“If there is no constitutional loss, [The Court] will not go into the subject matter,” he said. He also asked that the touchstones be reviewed.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah said both petitions were quite good. “Especially for petition [No. 102/PUU-XXI/2023], please revise it a little because it is not completely in accordance with PMK No. 2 of 2021,” he added.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo asked the Petitioners to strengthen their posita. “The arguments that elaborate the posita should be strengthened,” he requested.

Before adjourning the hearing, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo informed the Petitioners that they had 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office no later than Monday, October 2, 2023.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator  : Tahlitha Laela/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.

---