A petition revision hearing of the judicial review of the Election Law for case No. 146/PUU-XXI/2023, Wednesday (12/13/2023). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Petitioners challenging the age requirement for presidential and vice-presidential candidates in Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) as interpreted in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 did not attend the hearing on Wednesday, December 13, 2023. The petition revision hearing had been scheduled to take place in one of the panel courtrooms but until it started, the Petitioners and their legal counsel did not appear in Court nor had they submitted a revised petition.

“Following the invitation, this hearing will take place without the Petitioners’ attendance. The panel notes that the Petitioners nor their legal counsels have not submitted the revised petition, so the initial petition will be used,” said Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat (panel chair) alongside Constitutional Justices Enny Nurbaningsih and M. Guntur Hamzah.

Justice Arief said he would report this matter at the justice deliberation meeting.

Also read: Age Requirement for Presidential Tickets Challenged, Concurring Opinions Highlighted

The age requirement for presidential and vice-presidential candidates is challenged once again to the Constitutional Court (MK). The petition was filed by Heri Purwanto and Bambang Barata Aji.

At the preliminary hearing for case No. 146/PUU-XXI/2023 took place on Wednesday, November 29, the Petitioners revealed that they are Indonesian citizens and entrepreneurs. They highlight the concurring opinions of two justices in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, i.e. Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P Foekh and Enny Nurbaningsih.

“When compared to the verdict, the concurring opinions are unsynchronized. In our opinion [as stated in] in our petition, Professor Enny’s concurring opinion can actually be categorized as a dissent,” said legal counsel Mursid Mudiantoro.

The concurring opinions were fundamentally different from the verdict. The former emphasized the minimum age requirement of 40 years or having been or is currently a governor, whereas the verdict focuses on having been or is currently occupying an office elected through the general or regional election.

The Petitioners assert that the concurring opinion limited the requirement to governors. Meanwhile, the verdict extends it to legislative and executive election, in this case, regional election. When linked to the issue of presidential threshold, instead of being erga omnes, the a quo decision shows partiality to certain legal subjects.

In their petitum, the Petitioners request the Court to declare the phrase “at least 40 (forty) years of age” in Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 unconstitutional and to declare the a quo decision executorial.  

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S.F.
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.

---