The Petitioners’ legal counsel delivering the subject matter of the petition at the preliminary hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections, Tuesday (12/12/2023). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — A prosecutor and constitutional law observer from Gadjah Mada University (UGM) Jovi Andrea Bachtiar (Petitioner I) filed a judicial review of 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. He and a legal consultant and constitutional law observer from the University of Riau, Alfin Julian Nanda (Petitioner II), challenge the provisions of minimum age requirement to become a presidential and vice-presidential candidate stipulated in the article.

The Petitioners assert that Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as decided by the Court in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 is unconstitutional. They stated that if this situation is allowed to persist, it could reduce public trust in the Court and it would fail to provide legal certainty in the 2024 presidential election, and disputes over election results would likely occur.

“Regardless of his status as a prosecutor, as an individual Indonesian citizen Petitioner I has the right to vote in general elections and has the legal standing to file the a quo petition,” said the Petitioners’ legal counsel Welly Anggara at the preliminary examination hearing on Tuesday, December 12, 2023.

In their request for injunction, the Petitioners asked the Court to ban Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman from participating in examining, adjudicating, and deciding this petition because there is a conflict of interest. The Petitioners also asked the Court to order the General Elections Commission (KPU), due to force majeure in the form of violation of legal principles stipulated in Article 17 paragraph (4) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power by Anwar Usman, to postpone the implementation of the presidential election until the issuance of a final decision on this petition and a follow-up KPU regulation for the sake of legal certainty.

Furthermore, the Petitioners asked the Court to instruct the KPU, due to force majeure, to restart organizing the presidential election, starting from the registration of candidates for legal certainty and as an effort to prevent ongoing legal problems from the aspect of constitutional law. Meanwhile, in their petition, the Petitioners request the Court to declare Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as decided in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 to mean “at least 40 (forty) years of age or has completed at least one full term of office as a state official elected through a general election, including the election of heads of regions.”

The controversy over the presidential tickets’ age limit ended with a decision on the petition filed by Almas Tsaqibbirru, a student of Universitas Surakarta, in Case No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. In the decision, the Court partially granted the petition, which challenged Article 169 letter q of the Election Law.

“[The Court] grants the Petitioner’s petition in part; declares Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections that reads ‘at least 40 (forty) years of age’ in violation of the 1945 Constitution and not legally binding if not interpreted as ‘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,’” said then-chief justice Anwar Usman reading out the verdict on Monday, October 16, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.

Justices’ Advice

The panel of justices asked the Petitioners to observe Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023, which was issued on November 29, 2023. According to Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, some of the arguments submitted by the Petitioners have been answered or considered by the Court because they have the same substance.

Justice Arief, who also chaired the panel, said that the Petitioners could submit new and different arguments from Case No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023, which has already been decided. They can either revise the petition or withdraw it and submit a new one, but the justices left the decision to them.

“If you still wish to file the petition, it means that you have to change this entire petition because what is being challenged is not Article 169 letter q, not what has been interpreted in Decision 90, but what has been interpreted in Decision 141. That has actually all been considered in Decision 141, so now it has changed, but it will be applied for the purposes of the 2029 [Election],” said Justice Arief alongside Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.

Justice Arief stated that the Petitioners could choose to either revise the petition entirely or to withdraw it. The Constitutional Court will accept the revised petition no later than December 27, 2023 at 09:00 WIB.

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : M. 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.

---