Petitioner Adoni Y. Tanesab and legal counsel Marthen Boiliu at the judicial review hearing of Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, Wednesday (2/7/2024). Photo by MKRI/Bayu.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court held the preliminary hearing for the judicial review petition of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 on Wednesday, February 7, 2024. The petition No. 9/PUU-XXII/2024 was filed by Adoni Y. Tanesab, a university student.

The hearing was presided over by Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat, M. Guntur Hamzah, and Ridwan Mansyur. In the petition, the Petitioner alleges that said decision is inconsistent with Decisions No. 29/PUU-XXI/2023, 51/PUU-XXI/2023, and 55/PUU-XXI/2023, in which the same article was challenged and the petitioners were declared to have had legal standing to file the petition. The Petitioner alleges that the decision has harmed for not providing legal certainty and legal justice.

“The right to choose candidate pair that should have been legitimized by a provision that has legal force and legal justice was not fulfilled, so [the Petitioner] filed a judicial review petition so that Decision (No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023) be annulled that he [will] believe that the candidates he choose would have legal basis that shows justice,” said legal counsel Marthen Boiliu.

In the petitum, the Petitioner requests that the Court declare Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (Election Law), which reads “at least 40 (forty) years of age” unconstitutional 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.” Thus, the norm would read in full, “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.”

In Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court declared Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2017 No. 182, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia No. 6109), which stipulates presidential tickets be “at least 40 (forty) years of age” unconstitutional 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” and now reads as such.

Justices’ Advice

In response to the petition, Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah said the Constitutional Court regulation (PMK) the Petitioner cited was an old one. “The PMK was old, now there is PMK No. 2 of 2021. You also need to mention the legal basis for the judicial review of the Court’s decision. What the Court reviews are laws, but you are challenging the Court’s decision. Please find a legal basis for it,” he said.

Next, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur asked the Petitioner to explain the causality between the norm petitioned and his constitutional impairment so that it could explain violation of independence and impartiality. He also mentioned the PMK. “You used the old PMK. Avoid inaccurate citation. Also, to clarify your position as an eligible voter in election, [the elaboration] is too short,” he advised.

Before the hearing was adjourned, the panel informed the Petitioner that he would have 14 days to revise the petition and submit it by February 20, 2024 at 09:00 WIB.

Author       : Utami Argawati
Editor        : Nur R.
PR            : Raisa Ayuditha
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.

---