Advocate Rudy Hartono arguing the maximum limit for presidential tickets in Article 169 letter (q) of the General Election Law to the Constitutional Court, Thursday (9/21/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Rudy Hartono, an advocate, argued about the urgency of setting the maximum limit for presidential tickets in Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) to the Constitutional Court (MK) in case No. 107/PUU-XXI/2023. At the preliminary hearing on Thursday, September 21, 2023 in one of the Court’s panel courtrooms, he argued that the absence of a maximum age limit could potentially create discriminatory actions and is contrary to Article 8 paragraph (3), Article 27 paragraph (1), and Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (3) of the 1945 Constitution.

At the hearing chaired by Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo, he said the maximum age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates is important in strengthening the presidential system as set forth in Article 4 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. The president has a central position in government administration, thus good physical and mental abilities are required. Therefore, setting a maximum age limit must be interpreted as a reflection of the phrase “physically and mentally capable” in order to strengthen the presidential system in the unitary state.

The Petitioner compared this age limit with that for the Supreme Court justices. Article 11 letter b of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Supreme Court stipulates that Supreme Court justices retire at 70 years old.

“So, the absence of a maximum age limit for presidential/vice-presidential candidates could potentially create discrimination when compared to other public offices, such as the Supreme Court justices, the Constitutional Court justices, and civil servants who hold functional positions,” he explained.

For this reason, the Petitioner requests in his petitum that the Court declare the phrase “at least 40 years old” in Article 169 letter q of the Election Law conditionally constitutional, which means that it must also be interpreted with a provision on the maximum age with the phrase “at most 70 years old” as an integral part of the requirements to become presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

Legal Argument

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh said the unconstitutionality of the articles being challenged and the touchstone should be elaborated. He expected that the maximum age limit of 70 years be explained by rationalization with relevant theories and studies to convince the justices.

“Is this 70-year limit not discriminatory? Try to consider this and strengthen it in the argument since this is still in the preliminary hearing. This is also related to the Petitioner’s legal standing,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah said that there seemed to be something missing from the petitum so it seemed unusual. “Next, [you] need to emphasize whether to propose a minimum and maximum age limits or state that [you’d like] the presidential/vice-presidential candidates to be aged 40-70 years. Please review what you want to state in the petitum so the postita must be strengthened with comparisons of provisions on this age limits in other countries, “explained Justice Guntur.

Then Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo said the Petitioner needed to explain the touchstone and the meaning of the minimum and maximum age limits proposed.

Before concluding the hearing, Justice Suhartoyo reminded the Petitioner that he had 14 workdays to submit the revised petition to the Registrar’s Office no later than Wednesday, October 4, 2023 at 09:00 WIB.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
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.

---