Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra and Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Asrul Sani at the preliminary hearing of the material judicial review of the Pilkada Law, Friday (7/12/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — On Friday, July 12, 2024, the Constitutional Court (MK) held a preliminary hearing for three cases: No. 70/PUU-XXII/2024, No. 71/PUU-XXII/2024, and No. 72/PUU-XXII/2024. The Petitioners question the requirements for regional head candidates stipulated in Article 7 paragraph (2) of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to 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 (Pilkada Law).
The Petitioners of case No. 70/PUU-XXII/2024 are A. Fahrur Rozi, a constitutional law student at UIN (State Islamic University) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, and Anthony Lee, a student of Podomoro University. They challenge Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e of the Pilkada Law on the minimum age for regional head candidates, believing it has failed to provide legal certainty.
“The Petitioners have been harmed constitutionally due to the enforcement of the a quo article as it has led to legal uncertainty that does not fit the principles of the rule of law as stipulated in Article 1 paragraph (3) and the lack of recognition and fair legal certainty in Article 28D paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution,” said legal counsel Moh Qusyairi before Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices M. Guntur Hamzah and Asrul Sani in the plenary courtroom.
Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e of the Pilkada Law, which regulates that governor candidates be at least 30 years old while regent and mayor candidates be at least 25, reads, “Candidates for Governor and Candidates for Vice Governor, Candidates for Regent and Candidates for Vice Regent, and Candidates for Mayor and Candidates for Vice Mayor as referred to in paragraph (1) shall meet the following requirements: ... e. be at least 30 (thirty) years old for Candidates for Governor and Candidates for Vice Governor, and 25 (twenty-five) years old for Candidates for Regent and Candidates for Vice Regent and Candidates for Mayor and Candidate for Vice Mayor.”
The General Elections Commission and the Supreme Court have different interpretations of the article. The KPU counts the minimum age since the determination of the candidate pair but the Supreme Court believes it does not determine the starting point of the 30-year lower limit. In a decision, the Supreme Court asserts that Article 4 paragraph (1) letter d of the KPU Regulation No. 9 of 2020 on the candidacy is counted since the inauguration of the candidates elect.
To seek guarantee of legal certainty, in their petitum, the Petitioners request that the Court interpret Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e of the Pilkada Law to mean, “be at least 30 (thirty) years old for Candidates for Governor and Candidates for Vice Governor, and 25 (twenty-five) years old for Candidates for Regent and Candidates for Vice Regent and Candidates for Mayor and Candidate for Vice Mayor since the inauguration of the candidate pair.”
Wish to Run for Office
Meanwhile, former governor of Riau Islands Isdianto challenges Article 7 paragraph (2) letter o of the Pilkada Law in case No. 71/PUU-XXII/2024. He wishes the provision would also require vice regional head candidates to have never been a regional head in the same region.
Article 7 paragraph (2) letter o of the Pilkada Law reads, “… o. has never been a Governor for candidates for Vice Governor, or Regent/Mayor for Candidates for Vice Regent/Vice Mayor in the same region.”
The Petitioner argued that his constitutional right had been impaired by the enforcement of Article 7 paragraph (2) letter o of the Pilkada Law due to the legal uncertainty caused by the absence of clear limitation of the regional heads’ terms of office. He asserted that the Court need to interpret this provision to “has never hold office for one term as a Governor for candidates for Vice Governor, or as a Regent/Mayor for candidates for Vice Regent/Vice Mayor in the same region.”
Meanwhile, the Petitioner of case No. 72/PUU-XXII/2024, Tangerang resident Zulferinanda, admitted he had been harmed by the enforcement of Article 7 paragraph (2) letters c, e, and n of the Pilkada Law, which reads:
“Candidates for Governor and candidates for Vice Governor, candidates for Regent and candidates for Vice Regent, and candidates for Mayor and candidates for Vice Mayor as referred to in paragraph (1) shall meet the following requirements: c. have at least a senior high school education or its equivalent; e. be at least 30 (thirty) years old for candidates for Governor and candidates for Vice Governor, and 25 (twenty-five) years old for candidates for Regent and candidates for Vice Regent and candidates for Mayor and candidate for Vice Mayor; n. has never served as a Governor, Vice Governor, Regent, Vice Regent, Mayor, and Vice Mayor for 2 (two) terms of office in the same position for candidates of Governor, Vice Governor, Regent, Vice Regent, Mayor, and Vice Mayor.”
He asserted that if holding public office is purely to serve the community through manifesting all promised visions, missions, and work programs, one term would be enough. He noticed that it seems that in the regions, it is very rare for a work program to take more than five years to realize and necessitate a second term. If the person concerned has succeeded in developing the region they lead, they should move up to a higher office or replicate the success in other regions by participating in regional elections in other regions.
In his petitums, the Petitioner requests that the Court interpret Article 7 paragraph (2) letter c as “have at least a bachelor degree education or its equivalent” and Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e as “be at least 30 (thirty) years old for candidates for Governor, Vice Governor, Mayor, and Vice Mayor.” He also requests that the Court remove the phrase “for 2 (two) terms of office” in Article 7 paragraph (2) letter n.
Justices’ Advice
The panel of justices made a statement that the Petitioners and their legal counsels must make clear, sound arguments. The justices believe that the Petitioners had not made sound arguments that the provisions being challenged are unconstitutional. In addition, if the cases are brought to the Court for the 2024 regional election, they must explain the urgency behind the swift ruling for these cases.
“When is the determination of candidates? Observe the stages of the regional election, so these cases should be ruled more swiftly by the Court, or otherwise for 2030 or 2029. Please explain the urgency,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra said.
At the end of the hearing, the panel announced that the Petitioners would have 14 days to revise the petitions and they are to submit the petitions to the Registrar’s Office by Thursday, July 25 at 10:00 WIB.
Author : Mimi Kartika
Editor : Lulu Anjarsari P.
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.
Friday, July 12, 2024 | 13:57 WIB 85