Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and Wahiduddin Adams presiding over a hearing on Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections, Monday (12/4/2023). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The age requirement for presidential tickets is challenged once again in the Constitutional Court (MK). This petition was filed by four Surakarta residents—Fatikhatus Sakinah, Gunadi Rachmad Widodo, Hery Dwi Utomo, Ratno Agustio Hoetomo—and one Sukoharjo resident Zaenal Mustofa.

The advocates and legal consultants challenge the constitutionality of Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law). Based on Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court interpreted said article as, “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.”

After opening the preliminary hearing for case No. 148/PUU-XXI/2023 on Monday, December 4, 2023 in the plenary courtroom, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra asked the Petitioners, “Have you listened to or read (Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023)? Because this petition is similar to one that has been decided before, but we cannot prohibit [you from continuing this petition] because it is your right (to file a petition).”

“We only read the verdict off an article on detik.com, Your Honor. The touchstone of case 141 was different from ours, so we would like to continue (this petition),” said legal counsel Fadhil Mansyurudin virtually from the video conference facility of Universitas Sebelas Maret of Surakarta (UNS).

Only Governors

Fadhil explained that the phrase “elected through a general election, including the election of heads of regions” is against the principle of fair legal certainty as set forth in Article 28D paragraph (1) juncto Article 27 paragraph (1) juncto Article 28D paragraph (3) and Article 1 paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution, as long as it is not interpreted as “elected through an election of heads of regions at the provincial level.” The Petitioners believe it has harmed them potentially which according to logical reasoning can potentially happen because of the interpretation of the elected office.

“The article raises questions that indeed there are no objective indicators in determining whether someone has been declared mature and experienced, but according to logical reasoning a governor with a population and complex problems is more mature and experienced than a regent/mayor who is running for president or vice president,” Fadhil said before Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and Wahiduddin Adams.

The Petitioners believe the different interpretations have created legal uncertainty in terms of the legitimacy of the Constitutional Court’s ruling on the phrase. Simply put, through this petition, the Petitioners want only governors who are not yet 40 years old to be able to run for president or vice president.

With those arguments, the Petitioners request that the Court 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 an election of heads of regions at the provincial level.” In the petitum, the Petitioners request the article be interpreted in full as “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 at the provincial level.”

Justices’ Advice

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) advised the Petitioners and legal counsel to state that the Petitioners had read Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023, which already mentioned what the Petitioners intend.

“Please read decision 141 because it contains all [that the Petitioners referred to]—when the decision starts to be in effect, what 40 years old means for elected officials, public officials,” he said.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih reminded that if the petition be continued, the Petitioners and legal counsel would have a hard time revising it.

“You need to explain since Article 169 letter q must be accurate since you question Article 169 letter q that the Court already interpreted in Decision 90 and so on. This was then ruled in Decision 141. One of the touchstones (in case 141) is the same as yours, so you should be able to elaborate the difference with what you request and your touchstones,” she said.

Next, Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams said that the Petitioners’ request has been accommodated in Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023. He also advised them to understand the decision. He also asked what the Petitioners intend to review. “The Petitioners should consider whether they challenge Article 169 letter q of the Election Law or Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. You must be able to elaborate the additional phrase and why the Court must review your petition,” he asserted.

Author       : Fauzan F.
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

---