Petitioners Novel Baswedan (right) and Mochamad Praswad Nugraha (left) at the ruling hearing of the judicial review of the KPK Law on requirements for KPK commissioners, Thursday (9/12/2024). Photo by MKRI/Ifa.
JAKARTA (MKRI) — The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the petition filed by Novel Baswedan and others on the judicial review of Article 29 letter e of Law No. 19 of 2019 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 30 of 2002 on the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK Law) as the Constitutional Court (MK) reinterpreted in Decision No. 112/PUU-XX/2022. It also denied their provisional petitum in case No. 68/PUU-XXII/2024 to order temporary suspension of the selection of KPK commissioners for the 2024-2029 term.
Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said that the Court noted that in the provisional petitum the Petitioners requested that the Court order the selection committee to give them the opportunity to register and follow the selection process.
“The Court believes the Petitioners’ provisional petitum is not relevant to be considered further and, thus, must be declared legally unfounded,” Justice Arief said at the ruling hearing presided over by all nine constitutional justices on Thursday, September 12, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.
The case was ruled without the parties testifying because the Court did not see its urgency and relevance, following Article 54 of the Constitutional Court Law.
Court: Age Limit Should Not Often Be Amended
Justice Arief said that the Court has ruled that the provisions on minimum and maximum age limits for public offices are the legislatures’ prerogative, but under certain conditions they should not frequently amend them. The Court saw the need to stress this since frequent changes to those requirements could potentially lead to legal uncertainty and injustice.
“If [the age limits] were often changed, the legislatures would be likely to make adjustments on policies relating to age to restrict the constitutional rights of other citizens under political pretexts,” Justice Arief said.
Chief Justice Suhartoyo also explained that the most essential consideration in Decision No. 112/PUU-XX/2022 was the requirements relating to educational background, expertise, and experience—all are substantially more essential requirements than age limits. KPK commissioners who have prior leadership experience in the KPK for one term would, the Court asserted, provide more value to the KPK, given that they understand the work system, challenges, and performance targets of the agency. This is especially true because the KPK’s work, which relates to judicial cases, requires expertise.
“Therefore, based on the Court’s legal considerations in the a quo decision, one’s experience as a KPK leader is a distinct quality that cannot be equalize with expertise in any other field, including the experience of working at the KPK, since there are fundamental distinctions to having been a KPK leader,” the chief justice said.
He added that the experience as a KPK commissioner means the opportunity to comprehensively apply concrete things in running an organization in casu the KPK, be it for prevention or enforcement. Therefore, the Petitioners in case No. 112/PUU-XX/2022 was seen to have met the requirements and had the qualifications as KPK commissioners, as factually proven by them having been selected for a KPK commissioner.
Upon observation, the argument in case No. 112/PUU-XX/2022 was similar to that put forward by the Petitioner of case No. 68/PUU-XXII/2024, where they argued that they had been kept from registering as KPK commissioners due to the increase of the lower age limit from 45 to 50. However, there are a fundamental difference between the two. The Petitioners of the a quo case has not been KPK commissioners before, while that of case No. 112/PUU-XX/2022 had when he had filed the petition.
Therefore, both cases should not be equated juridically and factually, since experience is a qualification that the Court used to consider age limits for public offices. Through Decision No. 141/PUU-XXI/2023, delivered at an open plenary hearing on November 29, 2023, the Court ruled that age requirements were the legislatures’ prerogative. Despite the decision relates to the requirement for presidential tickets, as the Constitutional Court decisions are erga omnes (legally binding to all), it may not be discriminated against other Constitutional Court decisions.
“The determination of the lowest and highest age limits in a law is the legislatures’ authority, which can only be assessed or judged by the Constitutional Court if it violates the limitations of an open legal policy,” Chief Justice Suhartoyo said.
Justice Asrul Sani Dissents
Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Asrul Sani delivered a dissenting opinion. He believes the Court should have granted the petition, albeit in part. He argued that the Court should have interpreted Article 29 letter e to: “at least 50 (fifty years old) or have experience as a KPK employee in the corruption prevention or law enforcement division for at least 10 (ten) consecutive years, or at most 65 (sixty-five) years old.”
Also read:
Ex-KPK Employees Challenge Commissioners’ Age Requirement
Novel Baswedan and Ex-KPK Employees Ask KPK Commissioners Selection Be Halted
Police ASN Novel Baswedan, Mochamad Praswad Nugraha, and Rizka Anungnata; civil servants/PNS Harun Al Rasyid, Budi Agung Nugroho, Andre Dedy Nainggolan, Herbert Nababan, Andi Abd Rachman Rachim, and Juliandi Tigor Simanjuntak; as well as private employees March Falentino, Farid Andhika, and Waldy Gagantika claimed that the enforcement of Article 29 letter e of the KPK Law has infringed upon their constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 27 paragraph (1), Article 28D, and Article 28I of the 1945 Constitution as it led to them being unable to register in the selection of KPK commissioners for the 2024-2029 term.
Article 29 letter e of the KPK Law as reinterpreted by the Constitutional Court Decision No. 112/PUU-XX/2022 reads, “In order to be eligible to be appointed a Corruption Eradication Commission Commissioner, a candidate must be: e. at least 50 (fifty years old) and or have experience as a KPK Commissioner, and at most 65 (sixty-five) years old during the year of selection.” The Petitioners requested that it be reinterpreted to mean: “at least 50 (fifty years old) or have experience as a KPK Commissioner or at least 40 (forty) years old with at least 5 (five) years of experience as a Corruption Eradication Commission staff, and at most 65 (sixty-five) years old.”
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.
Thursday, September 12, 2024 | 13:44 WIB 139