New Interpretation of Presidential Ticket’s Age Limit
Image

Brahma Aryana listening to the verdict for case No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023 on the provision on presidential tickets’ age limit in Article 169 letter q of the Election Law, Wednesday (11/29/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.


JAKARTA (MKRI) — The provision of presidential tickets’ age limit as stipulated in Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law), with new interpretation by Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 is not contrary to the 1945 Constitution. The Court rejected entirely the petition filed by Brahma Aryana in Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023. The decision was read out by the Chief Justice Suhartoyo in a hearing held on Wednesday, November 29, 2023 in plenary courtroom.

In the Court’s opinion delivered by Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, it emphasized that there is a hierarchy within the government structure, therefore, the age requirements to become president, governor, regent/mayor are also made in levels. To become a presidential candidate and vice-presidential candidate, the minimum age is 40 years old (Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017), for governor/vice governor 30 years old, and for regent/vice regent and mayor/vice mayor 25 years old (Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law)). The political design of the law might be to allow someone to progress through the career ladder as a regional head, starting from the lowest level, i.e. the city, regency, and province.

Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. in court consideration emphasized that there is a hierarchy within the government structure, therefore, the age requirements to become president, governor, regent/mayor are also made in hierarchical. To become a presidential candidate and vice presidential candidate, the minimum age is 40 (forty) years old [Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017], for governor/deputy governor is at least 30 (thirty) years old, and for regent/deputy regent as well as for mayor/deputy mayor is at least 25 (twenty-five) years old [Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law)] The political design of the law may intend to accommodate the possibility of someone progressing through the career ladder as a regional head, starting from the lowest level, i.e. the city, regency, and province.

“This means that when someone becomes a regent or mayor at the age of 25, within one period of their leadership as a regent or mayor they will be 30 years old, thus within only one period they can run for governor. After serving two periods as governor, they can then run for president. This career progression is important to establish in order to provide experience and knowledge in leading a region with its diverse issues. It is expected that when a regional head advances to a higher level of leadership, they are already well-prepared and mature,” Justice Foekh explained.

He added that someone who has previously served as a governor might then run for president, an office that is more complicated and complex in the midst of Indonesia’s pluralistic, multi-ethnic, and multicultural society with political, economic, social, cultural, and security problems, even more so in the face of rapidly changing global challenges. Therefore, a presidential or vice-presidential candidate must be emotionally mature, physically and mentally competent, intellectually capable, and a unifying figure for the nation. Therefore, if there is a need to change the minimum age requirement to become a presidential or vice-presidential candidate, it can be reasonably argued that having served as governor should be a qualifying criterion, the requirements of which are further determined by the legislatures as an open legal policy.

Also read:

Petitioner Questions Experience as Governor for Presidential Tickets

Brahma Aryana Clarifies Basis of Requirements for Presidential Tickets

In addition, Justice Foekh added that efforts to adjust the age limit of presidential and vice-presidential candidates as stipulated in Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, or efforts to equate with state officials or state administrators (public officials)—including equating such offices with elected positions—is in the legislatures’ prerogative. In this regard, the Court needs to emphasize that if the legislatures intend to revise these options, the amendment to Law No. 7 of 2017 shall apply to the 2029 General Election and the general elections thereafter. Therefore, in the future, if the legislatures intend to make changes to Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, it should refer to these limitation criteria.

Therefore, based on the aforementioned legal considerations, Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 as interpreted by Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 is not contrary to the principle of the rule of law and does not conflict with the protection of the right to a fair legal certainty as stated in Article 1 paragraph (3) and Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution. Therefore, according to the Court, the arguments presented by the Petitioner are not legally justified in their entirety. Other matters and the remainder were not considered further because they were considered irrelevant.

Also read:

Re-examining Provision on Campaign Ban

Three Students Revise Petition on Campaign Ban

Constitutionality of Campaign Ban

The Court ruled to reject the judicial review petition regarding the prohibition of campaign activities in Article 280 paragraph (1) letter h of the Election Law. It found that the three students who filed petition No. 128/PUU-XXI/2023 did not fully understand Decision No. 65/PUU-XXI/2023 because the legal considerations of the decision had already juridically addressed and comprehensively answered the constitutional issues raised by the Petitioners, particularly regarding the prohibition and exceptions for election campaign activities in government facilities, places of worship, and educational institutions. In this regard, the Court needed to reiterate that it did not establish a new norm regarding Article 280 paragraph (1) letter h of the Election Law, which had already been interpreted in Decision No. 65/PUU-XXI/2023, so it can be considered a positive legislature, said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat while delivering the Court’s opinion for decision No. 128/PUU-XXI/2023.

Election campaigns in educational institutions are appropriate when targeting higher education students. Besides being a potential source of young voters, universities are also a symbol of the development of science and civilization, a center of educated people and of energy and ability to take anticipatory preventive measures against radical and intolerant ideology. Due to the highly strategic role of universities, the Court believes that through their academic community, universities have significant capabilities to promote political education and political participation among society through election campaigns.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized that election campaigns in universities can promote freedom of speech, expression, and the right to voice opinions for the academic community and that universities are the right place to test the vision, mission, program and/or image of election candidates so that election participants will obtain new ideas and perspectives from scientific discussions based on knowledge and research, aimed at improving and bringing about developmental changes. Universities also serve as a platform for the development of academic freedom, which fosters dialogue among election participants on the feasibility of their proposed programs after winning the election.

Election campaigns in universities disseminate knowledge and provide political education to the public. For students, as part of the academic community and as first-time voters, election campaigns can provide information about the track records, visions, missions, and programs of candidates. This information serves as a basis for making informed decisions and choosing the best candidates when exercising their voting rights in elections with conscience.

“However, election campaigns held in universities need to be adjusted according to the limitations as stated in Decision No. 65/PUU-XXI/2023. Such limitations are necessary to ensure that election campaigns do not transform into political campaigns that cause division and polarization within the academic community, which could ultimately lead to electoral violations,” Justice Arief emphasized.

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioners asserted their challenge against Article 280 paragraph (1) of the Election Law, which regulates political campaigns in campuses, which the Court has declared conditionally unconstitutional through Decision No. 65/PUU-XXI/2023. They argued that more than 50% or as many as 272 regional heads are acting regional heads (Plt.) appointed by the executive, in this case the president. They believed this shows potential political intervention. In the petition, they argued that the phrase “except for government facilities and educational institutions as long as they obtain permission from the manager of the site in question and attend without any campaign attributes,” which was declared conditionally unconstitutional, would still lead to harm to academics. They requested the Court to declare said phrase in Article 280 paragraph (1) letter f of Law No. 7 of 2017 unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Also read:

Court Asked to Repeal Article 515 of Election Law Prohibiting Abstention

Petitioner Absent, Court Adjourns Election Law Hearing

Ban on Abstention Constitutional

At the same hearing, the Court also ruled on Case No. 142/PUU-XXI/2023 filed by Jonatan Ferdy. Chief Justice Suhartoyo stated that the Petitioner’s petition was inadmissible.

In the legal considerations read by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court stated that the article the Petitioner used to explain alleged loss of constitutional rights and the basis for challenging Article 515 of the Election Law, that is, Article 28F of the 1945 Constitution, was not found in the copy of the 1945 Constitution the Petitioner used as evidence. The court argued that the Petitioner’s arguments could not be proven with accurate evidence.

In addition, the Petitioner did not correctly explain the background of the petition (posita) in sync with his request to the Court as stated in petitum number 1. The Petitioner challenged Article 515 of Law No. 7 of 2017 which reads, “A person who, during voting, deliberately promises to give a voter money, gifts, or other incentive to not vote or to vote a certain way or to cast an invalid vote is criminally punishable with maximum imprisonment of 3 (three) years and a maximum fine of Rp36,000,000.00 (thirty-six million rupiah),” conditionally. However, after the Court carefully examined petitum number 1, it did not find any change or difference in the norm as the Petitioner requested. The Petitioner requested that Article 515 be declared conditionally unconstitutional and has no binding legal force if not interpreted to mean “Any person who, during voting, deliberately promises to give a voter money, gifts, or other incentive to not vote or to vote a certain way or to cast an invalid vote is criminally punishable with maximum imprisonment of 3 (three) years and a maximum fine of Rp36,000,000.00 (thirty-six million rupiah).”

“The interpretation of Article 515 of Law No. 7 of 2017 requested by the Petitioner is the same as the formulation of the original norm. Therefore, the Petitioner’s petition is unclear and it cannot be understood that there is a connection between the Petitioner’s reasons for the petition (posita) and what is requested (petitum), so the Petitioner'’ petition is unclear or obscure. Therefore, the legal standing and subject matter of the petition are not considered,” said Justice Enny.

Also read:

Petitioner Questions Lack of Legislative Candidates’ Term Limit

Court Examines Revisions to Petition on Legislative Candidates’ Term Limit

Inadmissible

The Court could not accept the petition filed by university student Andi Redani Suryanata, who challenged Article 240 paragraph (1) and Article 258 paragraph (1) of the Election Law. Both articles regulate the requirements for DPR (House of Representatives), DRPD (Regional Legislative Council), and DPD (Regional Representatives Council) candidates and the provisions for DPD candidate registration through the provincial KPU (General Elections Commission).

In its legal opinion, the Court stated that in order to argue the loss of constitutional rights granted by Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution due to the enforcement of a statutory norm, in this case Article 182 and Article 240 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017, the lost must be factual or at least the potential.

“After the Court carefully studied Article 182 and Article 240 paragraph (1) of Law No. 7 of 2017, both norms are requirements that must be met by someone who will run for DPD or be nominated as a candidate for DPR, provincial DPRD, or regency/city DPRD,” said Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra reading out the Court’s legal considerations.

He further stated both provisions can only be considered to have caused harm or at least potentially harmed the Petitioner’s constitutional rights if they hindered his right to nominate or be nominated as a member of the DPR, DPD, provincial DPRD, or regency/city DPRD. However, the requirements contained in Article 182 of the Election Law had not in any way impeded the Petitioner’s right to apply as a candidate for DPD. Likewise, Article 240 paragraph (1) of the Election Law did not hinder his constitutional right to be nominated as a candidate for DPR, provincial DPRD, or regency/city DPRD,” said Justice Saldi Isra.

At the preliminary hearing, the Petitioner conveyed that Article 240 paragraph (1) and Article 258 paragraph (1) of the Election Law must be interpreted that the term limit of members of DPR, DPD, as well as the provincial and regency/city DPRD was as important as that of the president/vice president. He asserted that low quality, integrity, and competence have allowed corruption, collusion, and nepotism (KKN) by the legislative state institutions because Article 240 paragraph (1) and Article 258 paragraph (1) of the Election Law did not include term limit in the requirements for candidates for DPR, DPD, and DPRD members. For this reason, he requested that the Court declare both articles unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
Translator  : Najwa Afifah Lukman/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 29, 2023 | 16:38 WIB 335