Petitioner Rega Felix conveying revisions to his petition at a judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court, Monday (1/15/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Rega Felix, an advocate, has revised his material judicial review petitions of Law No. 7 of 2020 on the Constitutional Court for two cases: No. 152/PUU-XXI/2023 and 153/PUU-XXI/2023, following the constitutional justices’ advise at the preliminary hearing. In the latter, he now also questions Article 26 paragraph (1) letter b in addition to Article 15 paragraph (2) letter d and Article 23 paragraph (1) letter d.

In case No. 153/PUU-XXI/2023, he argues that he has constitutional rights and equal opportunity to become a justice as stipulated in Article 27 paragraph (3), Article 28D paragraphs (1) and (3), and Article 24C paragraph (5) of the 1945 Constitution because he holds a law degree, especially in constitutional law, and works as an advocate, thus meeting the requirements for a constitutional justice. However, because the minimum age requirement has often been changed to be higher without clear rationale—currently 55 years—it has caused him constitutional harm.

He appeared before the Court in person to detail the revisions to the petition, including those on the subject matter. He argues that with Article 24 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution as well as Decisions No. 22/PUU-XV/2017, 56/PUU-XX/2022, 90/PUU-XXI/2023, and 141/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court should not hide behind the pretext of open legal policy.

“If the Court intended to do judicial avoidance and declare the minimum age for constitutional justices an open legal policy, it must prove logically and constitutionally that the age limits that might be set by lawmakers—41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97—are constitutional and that we must accept them as is, so that it is proven that in all conditions the lawmakers’ authority is reflexive,” the Petitioner said at the hearing on Monday, January 15, 2024.

In the revised petition, he also expresses hope that the petition and all of the evidence be scrutinized to find academic truth for the nation and state’s constitutional interest. Given that the Constitutional Court’s decisions are erga omnes, the Petitioner hoped the petition would not be associated with political interest. He also hoped that his petition would not be treated differently from how the Court had treated the case No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 or any other similar cases. The decision for that case is proof that when the House of Representatives (DPR) and the president left the Court to decide, the Court’s authority could shift into providing alternative norms. As such, the Petitioner hoped that the Court would extend the same courtesy to his petition by applying Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law since the informants’ testimonies could substantially affect the Court’s decision. He uses the same framework as was used in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, so any different treatment would show inconsistency.

Also read: Constitutionality of Constitutional Justices’ Age Limit Challenged

Inquiry Right Challenged

Meanwhile, for the case No. 152/PUU-XXI/2023, the Petitioner challenges Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law, which reads, “The Constitutional Court may request the People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR), the House of Representatives (DPR), the Regional Representatives Council (DPD), and/or the President for information and/or minutes of meetings pertaining to the petitions being examined.” He revealed that he often litigates at the Court but is not sure of the meaning of the word “may” in Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law because often the Court overrides it simply because the petition is considered clear. He would like an explanation from the legislatures on the case because they had not responded to his inquiry. The absence of clear parameters in interpreting the word “may” in Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law has caused him a constitutional loss.

The Petitioner has had actual constitutional loss relating to the case. He has inquired the legislatures, in this case the House, but had received no response. The House, he argues, is the people’s representative who should answer complaints or problems faced by its people specifically relating to the administration of the state. As a result of the unclear meaning of the word “may” in Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law, the Petitioner’s case could potentially be decided without a fair legal process, thus would continue to hang while the legislatures be relieved of their responsibility to provide information. Thus, he argues, within logical reasoning, he could potentially have a constitutional loss.

Author       : Fauzan Febriyan
Editor        : Lulu Anjarsari P.
PR            : Tiara Agustina
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.

---