A judicial review hearing of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections to examine the petition revisions, Monday (1/15/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Petitioners of case No. 156/PUU-XXI/2023—prosecutor and constitutional law observer from Gadjah Mada University (UGM) Jovi Andrea Bachtiar and legal consultant and constitutional law observer from the University of Riau Alfin Julian Nanda—did not make any revision to their petition. They challenge the provision of minimum age requirement to become a presidential and vice-presidential candidate stipulated in Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law), which has been interpreted by the Court in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023.

“[We] do not [revise the petition], Your Honor,” said legal counsel Ryzky Yan Deriza answering panel chair Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat at the petition revision hearing on Monday, January 15, 2024.

The Petitioners then reiterated their petitum. In their provisional petitum, they asked the Court to ban Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman from participating in examining, adjudicating, and deciding this petition due to a conflict of interest.

They 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, they 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 petitum, 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.”

Also read: Prosecutors Challenge Presidential Tickets’ Age Limit in Election Law

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.

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat presided over the case alongside Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh and Ridwan Mansyur. After the hearing, they would bring the case to the justice deliberation meeting (RPH).

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

---