Purgatorio Siahaan, legal counsel for Petitioner of case No. 96/PUU-XXI/2023 conveying revisions to the judicial review petition of the Election Law, Wednesday (9/20/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) held the second hearing of the provision on the age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates in Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) on Wednesday, September 20, 2023. Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Manahan M. P. Sitompul and Suhartoyo presided over the petition revision hearing for cases No. 91/PUU-XXI/2023 by law student of Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta Arkaan Wahyu, 93/PUU-XXI/2023 by citizen Guy Rangga Boro, and 96/PUU-XXI/2023 by citizen Riko Andi Sinaga.

Attending online from Sebelas Maret University (UNS), Utomo Kurniawan, legal counsel for the Petitioner of case No. 91/PUU-XXI/2023, explained the revisions to the petition, such as the Court’s authority to adjudicate the a quo case and over the petitum.

“In the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare in the verdict that Article 169 letter q of the Election Law is unconstitutional if the phrase ‘at least 40 (forty) years of age’ be changed to ‘at least 21 years of age,’” he said.

Next, the Petitioner of case No. 93/PUU-XXI/2023 said he did not have any revision and would like to continue with the initial petition.

Changes to Articles to Petition

Meanwhile, the Petitioner of case No. 96/PUU-XXI/2023 through legal counsel Purgatorio Siahaan said that the petition had been revised to follow the Constitutional Court Regulation No. 2 of 2021 and several articles used as touchstone had been removed, i.e. Article 6 paragraph (2) and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. He also added the explanation of the Court’s authority and the argument he used to file the petition as an eligible voter.

“So, this petition mentions that the Petitioner is not only a potential presidential and vice-presidential candidate but also a voter. Thus, in the petitum, he requests that the Court hands down a verdict to declare the phrase ‘at least 40 (forty) years of age’ in in Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as ‘at least 25 years of age,’” Siahaan said.

Also read: Citizens Propose Age Limits for Presidential Tickets

At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, September 7, Utomo Kurniawan and Ilyas Satria Agung, legal counsels for the Petitioner of case No. 91/PUU-XXI/2023, asserted that leadership qualities and competencies do not correlate with the age of a leader. The Petitioner illustrated this by making a comparison between a 40-year-old presidential or vice-presidential nominated without any experience to a 21-year-old with experience being a leader at the regional level for several years and leading a company. Therefore, based on logical reasoning, the Petitioner argued, the younger person in that instance would qualify as a better leader than the 40-year-old. Allowing people who are at least 21 years old to become presidential and vice-presidential candidates would not result in incompetent leaders because it would only give all Indonesian citizens the opportunity to vote and be elected in general elections.

Next, the Petitioner of case No. 96/PUU-XXI/2023 argued that he has the right to elect and be elected in elections. Through legal counsel Purgatorio Siahaan, he argued that the restriction in Article 169 letter q of the Election Law has kept him from running for president/vice president, thus his right to equality has been eliminated due to the discriminating provision. In the petition, he argued that in Argentina and Colombia, presidential and vice-presidential candidates should be at least 30 years old. France passed an even lower age limit of 18 years. He also revealed Indonesian regional heads who have experience in leadership and whose workload he believes do not fare too different from a president and vice president.

Meanwhile, the Petitioner of case No. 93/PUU-XXI/2023 argued in court that individual citizens who have reached adulthood according to law must be given recognition, guarantees, protection, fair legal certainty, and equal treatment before the law and government. He believes the current age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates to be discriminatory. To strengthen his argument, he compared a number of laws in Indonesia related to age limit to hold an office, for example Law No. 12 of 2006 on Citizenship which state the age of adulthood is above 18 years, the Civil Code which states that adults are those who reach the age of 21 years and have been married, the Decree of the Minister of Home Affairs No. Dpt.7/539/7-77 dated July 13, 1977 which states that adulthood can be considered as: a. political adulthood with the limit of 17 years to be able to participate in elections, c. legal adulthood being a certain age limit according to law where one is considered capable of acting by law.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
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.

---