The Petitioners’ legal counsel Reza Setiawan at the petition revision hearing of the judicial review of Law No. 7 of 2017 on Elections, Tuesday (12/19/2023). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Petitioners of case No. 150/PUU-XXI/2023 requested the Court to restore Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) to the version before its interpretation in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. They hope that the article would read, “Requirements that must be fulfilled by a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate are as follows: q. at least 40 (forty) years of age.”

“The Petitioners request that the Court declare Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections along the phrase ‘or has occupied/is occupying an office elected through a general election, including the election of heads of regions’ conditionally unconstitutional and contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and not legally binding so that [it] reads ‘at least 40 (forty) years of age,’” said legal counsel Reza Setiawan at the petition revision hearing on Tuesday, December 19, 2023 in the plenary courtroom.

The Petitioners argue that there was conflict of interest in Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which allegedly violated Article 17 paragraphs (4), (5), and (6) of Judiciary Law, so material judicial review must be conducted again on Article 169 letter q of the Election Law. With the Constitutional Court Ethics Council (MKMK) having decided that Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman had committed serious violations of code of ethics and with the fact that a few justices agreed while a few others presented concurring opinions and dissenting opinions, the petition should have been rejected or at least the review of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law should be re-examined.

The Petitioners asserted that this was to ensure that there would be no more constitutional justices who commit serious ethical violations in the future. “The meaning of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law should be restored to its original content prior to Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023,” he said.

The Petitioners believe that the reasons for the petition are different from those in case No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023 or not ne bis in idem, where the Court had decided a review of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted by the Court in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Therefore, according to the Petitioners, it is appropriate for the Court to declare Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 conditionally unconstitutional due to procedural flaws.

Also read: Petitioners Consider Decision on Presidential Tickets’ Age Limit Flawed

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. They challenge 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

At the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, December 5, they argued that the Court’s decisions or interpretation of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law have violated the Constitutional Court’s procedural law. In addition, they asserted, there had been 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 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.

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. 

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.

---