Petitioners Soefianto Soetomo and Imam Hermanda requesting the phrase “maximum age” be added to Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (10/3/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA, MKRI — Many petitioners are requesting the minimum age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates, but individual citizens Soefianto Soetomo and Imam Hermanda wish for the phrase “maximum age” be added to Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law). The preliminary hearing for case No. 105/PUU-XXI/2023 was held on Tuesday, October 3, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.

Soefianto said that in some countries, it is possible for presidential and vice-presidential candidates to be over the age of 70, which he believes is not an optimal age for them to be carrying out their duties. The Petitioners believe the law in Indonesia specifically regulates the minimum age limit of state civil apparatuses, military officers, police officers, and private employees by setting their retirement age. They argue that lack of regulation or clarification of the maximum age restriction for running as presidential/vice-presidential candidates in the a quo article has violated their constitutional rights.

“Obviously, this is also exceedingly discriminatory and inconsistent, so it is reasonable that the Petitioners filed for a judicial review against the petition’s object,” said Imam before Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Manahan M.P. Sitompul and Arief Hidayat.

Therefore, in the petitum, the Petitioner request the Court to declare the phrase “at least 40 (forty) years old” in Article 169 letter q of the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “at least 30 (thirty) years of age. “

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat advised the Petitioners to study the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021 as a basis for drafting the petition. After examining the petition, he noted that the Petitioners want to add a new phrase on the maximum age limit for presidential tickets.

“So, the petitum should be adjusted to what the Petitioners want. Looking at the current petition, it could be declared vague because it doesn’t state that clearly,” he stressed.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Manahan said that the Petitioners should describe the Court’s authority on the resolution of the case being examined starting from the Judicial Power Law, the Constitutional Court Law, the Lawmaking Law, and PMK No. 2 of 2021—the last of which contains practical guidelines in drafting a petition.

“After that description, the Court has the authority to adjudicate the Petitioners’ petition. It must be clear that the legal standing stems from the constitutional loss due to the enactment of the norm, the connect it with the request to amend the article,” he said.

Then, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra highlighted the explanation that the article being reviewed is contrary to an article in the 1945 Constitution. He added that the Petitioners also needed to emphasize the age limit proposed so that the petition would not be declared vague.

At the end of the hearing, Justice Saldi announced that the Petitioners would have 14 workdays to revise the petition and submit it to the Registrar’s Office no later than Tuesday, October 3, 2023 at 09:00 WIB.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator  : Nyi Mas Laras Nur Inten Kemalasari/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.

---