Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra with Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Ridwan Mansyur opening the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Constitutional Court Law, Tuesday (2/6/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Petitioner of No. 8/PUU-XXII/2024 on the material judicial review of Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court as amended by Law No. 7 of 2020—university student Adoni Y. Tanesab, represented by legal counsel Marthen Boiliu—was absent from the preliminary hearing on Tuesday, February 6, 2024.

After opening the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra asked the courtroom staff to check the Petitioner’s attendance. “A letter was addressed to the Chief Justice that [the Petitioner] had an out-of-town assignment and thus was indisposed. It will be discussed in the justice deliberation meeting whether this excuse can be justified or not. Since [the Petitioner] is absent, the hearing is adjourned,” Justice Saldi said before banged the gavel.

In his petition, the Petitioner challenges Article 1 paragraph (3) letter a; Article 10 paragraph (1) letter a; Article 30 letter a; Article 51 paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) letters a and b; Article 51A paragraphs (1), (2) letter b, (4) letters b and c, and (5) letters b and c of the First Amendment; as well as Article 56 paragraphs (3), (4), and (5); Article 57 paragraphs (1) and (2); and Article 59 paragraph (1) of the Third Amendment to Law No. 24 of 2003 on the Constitutional Court and their elucidation along the word “Law.” He alleges that the norms are unconstitutional and not legally binding if the word “Law” is not interpreted “including the Constitutional Court Decisions of which examination and decision-making process is proven to have violated the principles of independence and impartiality in the Code of Ethics and Conduct of Constitutional Court Justices (Sapta Karsa Hutama) based on the Decision of the Constitutional Court Ethics Council (MKMK).”

The Petitioner asserts that a judicial review petition of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 since the Court has authority to do so. He also alleges that the decision, which has been declared to have violated code of ethics, has lots legitimacy. He believes that the provision “a Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidate shall be 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” has also lost legitimacy.

Therefore, he asserts, it would be appropriate if the Court grant the petition on the articles that the Petitioner requests to review so that Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 can be examined and invalidated for the sake of legal certainty and fairness as a legitimate source of law on the presidential tickets that the Petitioner and 204,807,222 Indonesian voters wish for.

Also read: Petitioner Asks Court Decisions That Violate Code of Ethics Be Reviewed

Author       : Mimi Kartika
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Andhini S. F.
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.

---