Petitioners Russel Butarbutar and Utami Yustihasana Untoro listening to the ruling of the formal judicial review of the minimum age limit for presidential tickets in the Election Law, Wednesday (1/31/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 in the plenary courtroom, the Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire judicial review petitions of Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law) as interpreted in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 in cases No. 154/PUU-XXI/2023—filed by two lecturers of the Faculty of Law of Bung Karno University, Russel Butarbutar and Utami Yustihasana Untoro (Petitioners I and II)—and No. 159/PUU-XXI/2023—filed by Yuliantoro.
For case No. 154/PUU-XXI/2023, Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih stated that the a quo article is not in violation of principles of the rule of law; independent judicial power; integrity, fairness, and statesmanship; as well as the protection, promotion, enforcement, and fulfillment of human rights as contained in Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 24 paragraph (4), and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution.
In Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which is final and inkracht, the Court had left it to the legislatures to determine the minimal age limit for presidential tickets, with candidates having/are occupying elected offices through election including the regional election as an alternative.
“Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 as the Court interpreted in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 has legal binding force and, thus, the Petitioners’ petition was legally groundless in its entirety,” Justice Enny concluded.
Including Heads of Regions
The Court has the same stance in case No. 159/PUU-XXI/2023. Delivering the Court’s legal opinions, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur said that in Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court had mentioned three key issues relating to the minimum age limit of forty for presidential tickets: the wish to reduce the age limit to under forty, that the age limit of forty can be equated with a public office that one has occupied or still occupies, and that the age limit of forty can be equated with an elected office.
From those three key issues, Justice Ridwan continued, the main issue in the Petitioner’s argument was that the governor and vice governor of Yogyakarta Province (DIY), vice regional heads, and members of the provincial DPRD and members of the regency/city DPRD are not included. The Court is of the view that equating the age of forty with public offices or state administrator offices that one has occupied or is sitting refers to broad laws and regulations and there are differences between those laws and regulations.
“Therefore, the Petitioner’s argument that the ‘vice regional head’ office not be included in Decision No. 90/PUUXXI/2023 where the Constitutional Court equated the age limit of forty and the new interpretation of ‘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’ is an incomprehensive way of interpreting the decision,” Justice Ridwan stressed.
This is because, he explained, although Article 18 paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution that regulates governors, regents, and mayors respectively as heads of provincial, regency, and city governments is not followed by the positions of vice governor, vice regent, and vice mayor, juridically a number of laws have interpreted the position of regional head to include deputy regional head. Even the deputy regional head as a position included in the position of regional head is mentioned in the Constitutional Court Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023, where it equates the minimum age limit of forty years with the office of regional head and/or deputy regional head as elected officials.
“[The Court] adjudicated, rejects the Petitioner’s petition in its entirety,” said Chief Justice Suhartoyo.
Also read:
Petitioners: Presidential Tickets’ Age Limit is Lawmakers’ Authority
Law Lecturers Affirm Reason for Petition on Presidential Tickets’ Age Limit
The Petitioners of case No. 154/PUU-XXI/2023 challenged the constitutionality of the presidential ticket age limit in Article 169 letter q of the Election Law following Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. They argued that the minimum age requirement for presidential and vice-presidential candidates is the authority of the legislatures. Therefore, the Court should be consistent in taking a stance in deciding cases relating to it such as in Decision No. 15/PUU-V/2007 relating to the minimum age requirement for regional head candidates; Decision No. 37-39/PUU-VIII/2010 relating to the minimum and maximum age limit for KPK leaders; and Decision No. 51-52-59/PUU-VI/2008 where the Court held that legal policy products by the lawmakers cannot be canceled unless they clearly violate morality, rationality, and intolerable injustice.
They also mentioned that according to MKMK (Constitutional Court Ethics Council) Decision No. 2-5/MKMK/L/11/2023 on November 7, 2023, violation of code of ethics by the justices had a connection with formal violations in the hearings for Case No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Therefore, they requested that the Court declare the formation of Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, which interprets Article 169 letter q of the Election Law unconstitutional and not legally binding.
Also read:
Decision on Presidential Tickets’ Age Limit Deemed to Have Caused Legal Problems
Petitioner of Election Law Affirm Different Reason on Age Limit of Presidential Tickets
Meanwhile, Yuliantoro, the Petitioner of case No. 159/PUU-XXI/2023 alleged that the Court’s interpretation of the article was contrary to Article 1 paragraph (2), Article 6 paragraph (2), Article 18 paragraph (4), Article 18B paragraph (1), Article 28D paragraph (3), and Article 28I paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution. He explained that the phrase “the election of heads of regions” in the article had caused legal problems because no laws expressly regulates said election other than Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law. As a result, the newly-article contains unclear legal elements that require confirmation of the correct legal norms.
Therefore, in his petitum, he requested the Court to declare Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted in Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 unconstitutional and not legally binding if not interpreted as “at least 40 (forty) years of age, unless the law determines otherwise.” He also asked the Court to annul said decision and declare it invalid with all its legal consequences.
Author : Sri Pujianti
Editor : Nur R.
PR : Raisa Ayuditha Marsaulina
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.
Wednesday, January 31, 2024 | 19:28 WIB 169