Legal counsels Weni Sepalia and Wulan Febriana Putri at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the provisions on the age limit for presidential tickets, Wednesday (1/31/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the entire petition in case No. 156/PUU-XXI/2023 on 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. The case was filed by 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 (Petitioners I-II).

In its legal opinions, delivered by Constitutional Justice Enny Nurbaningsih, the Court asserted that the determination of age limits is the legislatures’ prerogative as long as it does not go against morality, rationality, nor does it lead to intolerable justice. Therefore, the issue in the a quo petition should be left to the legislatures to revise or adjust, the Court stressed.

“Therefore, there is no takeover of the legislatures’ authority in relation to the interpretation of Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017,” Justice Enny said at the ruling hearing on Wednesday, January 31, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

Justice Enny also stressed that Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as has been interpreted in the Constitutional Court No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 is not against the principles of rule of law, the principles of independent judiciary, the principle of integrity, statesmanship, as well as the principles of protection, advancement, enforcement, and fulfillment of human rights as stipulated in Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 24C paragraph (5), and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution—not unlike the Petitioners’ argument. In addition, the Court emphasized that the Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 is final and legally binding and not in violation of the principles of judicial power as stipulated in Article 17 paragraphs (4) and (5) of Law No. 48 of 2009 on Judicial Power.

The Court stated that the different touchstones in this petition—Article 1 paragraph (3), Article 24C paragraph (5), and Article 28I paragraph (4) of the 1945 Constitution—meant that the a quo petition could be re-filed. The petition was decided without any testimonies from other parties because the Court was of the opinion that there was no urgency and relevance to hear those parties, as per Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law.

Also read:

Prosecutors Challenge Presidential Tickets’ Age Limit in Election Law

Prosecutors Do Not Revise Petition on Election Law

The Petitioners did not make any revision to their petition until the petition revision hearing on Monday, January 15, 2024. Instead, they reiterated their petitum. They requested 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.”

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.

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.

---