JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) decided the petitions No. 71/PUU-XXII/2024 and 73/PUU-XXII/2024 on Article 7 paragraph (2) letter o of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law) inadmissible. These two petitions challenged the requirement of not having served as a governor for a vice governor candidates or as a regent/mayor for vice regent/vice mayor candidates in the same region.

The Court also declared the petition No. 72/PUU-XXII/2024 inadmissible. The petition challenged Article 7 paragraph (2) letters c, e, and n of the Pilkada Law. This petition concerned the provisions on high school diploma or the equivalent as an educational requirement, the lower age limit for regional head candidates, and the requirement of never having served as regional head or the deputy for two terms in the same position for candidates for regional heads and the deputies.

Case No. 71/PUU-XXII/2024

In its legal opinion, delivered by Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra, the Court stated that it had found it difficult to understand the petitum by the Petitioner of case No. 71/PUU-XXII/2024, former governor of Riau Islands Isdianto. The petitum did not follow the format as referred to in Article 10 paragraph (2) letter d of the Constitutional Court Regulation (PMK) No. 2 of 2021. It also did not the format for judicial review in the Constitutional Court. As such, the Court believes it to be obsecure.

“Since the Petitioner’s petitum is obscure, thus not meeting the formal requirement as referred to in Article 10 paragraph (2) of PMK No. 2 of 2021, the Court did not consider the legal standing and the petition further,” the deputy chief justice said.

Also read: 

Ahead of Local Election, Requirements for Candidates Challenged

Petitioners Seek Ruling Before Regional Head Nominations

Case No. 73/PUU-XXII/2024

Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra also said that Article 7 paragraph (2) letter o of the Pilkada Law did not harm or reduce the Petitioners’ constitutional right to run in a regional election. In this case, the regulation in question does not restrict them, but only restricts anyone who have served as a governor from running as a vice governor candidate or as a regent/mayor from running as vice regent/vice mayor candidates in the same region.

This means that if the Petitioners would like to develop their regions through the regional head election, they should find deputy regional head candidates who are not restricted by the article. As such, the Court had no doubt to declare the Petitioners—John Gunung Hutapea, Deny Panjaitan, Saibun Kasmadi Sirait, and Elvis Sitorus (Petitioners I-IV)—lacking legal standing to be petitioners in the a quo petition.

“Since the Petitioners did not have the legal standing to file the a quo petition, their petition is not considered further,” Deputy Chief Justice Saldi said.

Case No. 72/PUU-XXII/2024

Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani said that the Court had not found any elaboration that the Petitioner of case No. 72/PUU-XXII/2024, Tangerang resident Zulferinanda, that he is an eligible voter in the 2024 regional election or that he wished to run for the regional election. He only explained that he did not want his hometown and region of domicile to not develop properly due to a leadership that cannot bring prosperity to the regions.

The Court did not find any potential loss in the Petitioner due to the enforcement of the norm petitioned, nor did it find causality between the norm and the loss of his constitutional rights—which is a requirement as per Article 51 of the Constitutional Court Law and the Constitutional Court Decisions No. 006/PUU-III/2005, 11/PUU-V/2007, and several others.

Because the norm petitioned concerns the requirements for regional head candidates, such as educational background, age, and term of office—all important norms for the regional head election—the Court asserted that the Petitioner did not have legal standing to be a petitioner in the a quo case.

“Since the Petitioners did not have the legal standing to file the a quo petition, the Court did not consider their petition’s subject matter,” Justice Arsul said.

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.