Petitioner Questions Experience as Governor for Presidential Tickets
Image

Petitioner Brahma Aryana and legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa at the panel preliminary hearing for the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections, Wednesday (11/8/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — Law student of Nahdlatul Ulama Indonesia University (Unusia) Brahma Aryana filed petition No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023 against Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law). In Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court interprets Article 169 letter q of the Election Law to mean “Requirements that must be fulfilled by a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate are as follows: q. at least 40 (forty) years of age or has occupied/is occupying an office elected through a general election, including the election of heads of regions.

The Petitioner along with his legal counsel Viktor Santoso Tandiasa attended the preliminary hearing on Wednesday, November 8, 2023 in the plenary courtroom. Tandiasa asserted that the phrase “elected through a general election, including the election of heads of regions” is contrary with Article 3 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as long as it is not interpreted as “elected through the election of heads of regions at the provincial level.”

The Petitioner believes that the article has caused legal uncertainty regarding the position level referred to. He asserted that it has raised a question whether the article refers to heads of regions at the provincial, or regency/city levels and whether it is of the members of the DPR (House of Representatives), DPRD (Regional Legislative Council), or DPD (Regional Representatives Council). These possible interpretations have raised a question on the legitimacy of the verdict on the phrase that has been interpreted by the Constitutional Court. Simply put, through this petition, the Petitioner wishes only governors who are not yet 40 years old be able to run as presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

“The interpretation stipulated in the binding verdict (Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023) replacing the provision of Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 has created an opportunity for every citizen who are at least 21 years of age to register as presidential and vice-presidential candidates as long as they occupy positions elected through general elections including regional head elections. This can certainly risk the fate of the continuity of the state of Indonesia, which has a very large territory and population... thus requires experienced state leaders and mental stability and maturity in leading,” Tandiasa explained before Constitutional Justices Suhartoyo, Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, and M. Guntur Hamzah.

For those reasons, the Petitioner requests the Court to declare the phrase “elected through a general election, including the election of heads of regions” in Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 unconstitutional if not interpreted as “elected through the election of heads of regions at the provincial level” and that it should read in full, “at least 40 (forty) years of age or has occupied/is occupying an office elected through the election of heads of regions at the provincial level.”

Not Ne Bis In Idem

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh said that this petition was the first that is not ne bis in idem because the article being challenged has been interpreted by the Court and this was the first petition challenging this interpretation. “Does the Petitioner only want to ask the Court for an explanation? Or just to make sure that the majority Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 requires those elected in general elections?” he asked the Petitioner.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Guntur Hamzah stated that the Petitioner’s mission has been accommodated in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. He also advised the Petitioner to understand Article 56 of the Constitutional Court Law, which details the types of decisions by the Constitutional Court. “That article explains that there is the verdict as well as dissenting and concurring opinions. [Please study] the procedural law, so you will understand the meaning of dissenting opinion that [dismisses] and rejects the petition. Meanwhile, [some of the] justices who granted [the petition gave] different reasons. Please understand the context,” he explained.

Next, Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo advised the Petitioner to strengthened his legal standing by adding an argument that the article should apply only to governors and how he is currently not an official referred to in the petition. “This article is actually for the benefit of who? This must be given an argument,” he said.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
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.


Wednesday, November 08, 2023 | 16:18 WIB 87