Legal counsel Janses E. Sihaloho conveying the arguments of a judicial review petition against Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections, Tuesday (12/5/2023). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The presidential tickets’ age limit was challenged again to the Constitutional Court (MK). The petition was filed by two advocates, Lamria Siagian and Ridwan Darmawan, and two students, R. D. Ilham Maulana and Asy Syifa Nuril Jannah.

In Case No. 150/PUU-XXI/2023, the Petitioners challenged Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) as interpreted by the Court in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. The preliminary hearing was held on Tuesday, December 5, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.

“The Court has the authority to re-review Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, which has been petitioned by the Petitioners, despite it having been examined and decided by the Court several times, because the constitutionality requirements which are the reason for the Petitioners’ petition are different from previous cases,” said the Petitioners’ legal counsel Ecoline Situmorang at the hearing.

Conflict of Interest

The Petitioners argue that the Court’s decisions or interpretation of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law have violated the Constitutional Court’s procedural law while causing an uproar and tarnishing the Court’s reputation as an institution that safeguards the Constitution. In addition, there was a conflict of interest when the Court was examining Article 169 letter q of the Election Law, as mentioned in the dissenting opinion of Justice Arief Hidayat in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. However, the Petitioners asserted that Article 17 paragraph (4) of the Judicial Power Law states, “A chief judge, panel judges, prosecutors, or registrars must recuse themselves from a trial if they are related by blood or marriage until the third degree, or are husband or wife even though they have been divorced, with the party being tried or the advocate.”

Article 17 paragraph (5) of the Judicial Power Law also states, “A judge or registrar must recuse themselves from a trial if they have a direct or indirect interest in the case being examined, either of their own free will or upon the request of the parties involved.”

Moreover, Article 17 paragraph (6) of the Judicial Power Law states, “In the event of a violation of the provisions referred to in paragraph (5), the decision shall be declared invalid, and the respective judge or registrar shall be subject to administrative sanctions or punished in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.”

Constitutional Court’s Honor

The Petitioners reminded that Article 24C paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution requires the constitutional justices to have integrity and irreproachable personality, to be fair statesmen who master the Constitution and state administration, and not to concurrently serve as state officials. The Petitioners asserted that Justice Anwar Usman serving as chief justice while adjudicating Case No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 might have violated Article 17 paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of the Judicial Power Law in examining and deciding the case, thus automatically failing to meet the qualifications mentioned in Article 24C paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution.

“And to maintain the Court’s dignity as an institution safeguarding the Constitution, the Petitioners ask the justices to examine and decide the a quo case by excluding Prof. Dr. Anwar Usman, S.H., M.H. from the a quo case,” Situmorang said.

The Petitioners’ legal counsel Janses E Sihaloho said it was appropriate for the Court to declare the provisions of Article 169 letter q of  the Election Law as interpreted by the Court in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 unconstitutional due to procedural flaws. Therefore, in their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court the phrase “elected through a general election, including the election of heads of regions” unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams in his advice reminded the Petitioners to read Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023. He said the Petitioners’ arguments were the same as those in petition No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023.

“What the Petitioners argued has been answered in Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023. The request to exclude Justice Anwar Usman from this case involving age limit has already been decided and read by eight constitutional justices. Therefore, all of these matters have already been implemented,” Justice Wahid stated.

He also reminded that re-review can also mean ne bis in idem because the touchstone for the review is the same, which is Article 1 and 28D paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. He suggested that the Petitioners consider these matters.

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.

---