Bung Karno University’s law lecturers Utami Yustihasana Untoro and Russel Butarbutar at a judicial review hearing of the Election Law, Monday (12/11/2023). Photo by MKRI/Fauzan.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The constitutionality of the presidential ticket age limit is being challenged again in the Constitutional Court (MK). The provision is stipulated in Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law), which has been decided by the Court in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. The preliminary hearing for Case No. 154/PUU-XXI/2023 was held at the Court on Monday, December 11, 2023 and was presided over by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra alongside Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

This petition was filed by two lecturers of the Faculty of Law of Bung Karno University, Russel Butarbutar (Petitioner I) and Utami Yustihasana Untoro (Petitioner II). They argue that the minimum age requirement for presidential and vice-presidential candidates is the authority of the legislatures. Therefore, the Court should be consistent in taking a stance in deciding cases relating to it such as in Decision No. 15/PUU-V/2007 relating to the minimum age requirement for regional head candidates, Decision No. 37-39/PUU-VIII/2010 relating to the minimum and maximum age limit for KPK leaders, and Decision No. 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 where the Court held that legal policy products by the lawmakers cannot be canceled unless they clearly violate morality, rationality, and intolerable injustice.

In addition, Butarbutar mentioned that according to MKMK (Constitutional Court Ethics Council) Decision No. 2-5/MKMK/L/11/2023 on November 7, 2023, violation of code of ethics by the justices had a connection with formal violations in the hearings for Case No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Therefore, the Petitioners request that the Court declare the formation of Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which interprets Article 169 letter q of the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Wahiduddin Adams asked the Petitioners if they were challenging Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 or if they requested the formal judicial review of the Election Law. “Does this also mean [the review being requested is on] the formation process of this Law? Because if [the petition] is challenging Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, there is already Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh informed the Petitioners about the formal judicial review of Article 169 letter q, which had been interpreted by the Constitutional Court in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. He also observed that the Petitioners should provide a description of the principles, theories, or comparisons with other countries on the re-examination of final constitutional court decisions.

The same thing was also requested by the Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra. He asked the Petitioners to clarify the legal basis that could strengthen the re-examination of the previous constitutional court decisions.

“Provide us with theoretical and practical arguments. Where in the world has a court decision, especially a formal review, been challenged? The validity of Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 has already been explained in Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023. We ask that after reading it, the Petitioners explain to us what legal doctrines justify the formal review of such a court decision. This will provide a new insight too, so find us comparisons from elsewhere,” he explained.

At the end of the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi said that the Petitioners were given up to 14 days to revise the petition. The revised petition must be submitted no later than Wednesday, December 27, 2023 at 09:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office.

Author       : Sri Pujianti
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Muhammad Halim
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.

---