Constitutional Justices Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh, Arief Hidayat, and Ridwan Mansyur presiding over the preliminary judicial review hearing for the Regional Election Law, Monday (9/30/2024). Photo by MKRI/Panji.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Indonesian citizen Zulferinanda has filed a material judicial review petition of the educational and age requirements for regional head candidates under Article 7 paragraph (2) letters c and e of Law No. 10 of 2016 on the Second Amendment to Law No. 1 of 2015 on the Stipulation of the Government Regulation in Lieu of Law No. 1 of 2014 on the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors into Law (Pilkada Law). The case No. 130/PUU-XXII/2024 took place on Monday, September 30, 2024 in the plenary courtroom.

Article 7 paragraph (2) letters c and e of the Pilkada Law reads, “Candidates for Governor and candidates for Vice Governor, candidates for Regent and Vice Regent, and candidates for Mayor and Vice Mayor, as referred to in paragraph (1) must 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.”

The Petitioner argued that the requirement of a senior high school (SLTA) education or its equivalent is not in line with the spirit to improve the nation’s intellect. He believes a regional head must have ideas for human resource development programs, economic empowerment programs in the regions, and direction for regional economic policies.

The Petitioner believes such an education requirement does not reflect the possibility of one possessing the strategies to optimize regional revenues. Despite education not guaranteeing success, those with at least an undergraduate degree would have a better mindset, perspective, and paradigm as they are trained to analyze problems to arrive at conclusions which can translate to policies when they become regional heads.

The Petitioner also argued that the minimum age limit of 25 years for regional heads has trivialized their positions in the state structure, given that it is easy for those under 30 years to lead a regency/city.

“Being only a senior high school (SLTA) graduate or its equivalent at that age, what factor can be used as an argument to nominate one as a regional head candidate? What sort of contribution can they give to the region they will lead? Their capability to lead a big team of regional government can be called into question, let alone to advance and prosper the community as mandated by the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution? How much and how outstanding their experience to apply when becoming a regional head at that age? What kind of integrity can they promise when they haven’t even come close to the temptation and pressure in managing government?” he asked.

Therefore, the Petitioner requested that the Court declare Article 7 paragraph (2) letters c of the Pilkada Law unconstitutional and, thus, should be changed to “have at least a bachelor's degree or an equivalent.”

He also asked that the Court declare Article 7 paragraph (2) letters e of the Pilkada Law unconstitutional and not legally binding, thus requiring to change the phrase “25 (twenty-five) years old” to “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 Mayor and Candidate for Vice Mayor.”

Justices’ Advice

Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat said the issue had been challenged before and the Court has ruled that the age limits of regional heads are the legislatures’ jurisdiction. Therefore, he said, the Petitioner must elaborate how his petition differed from the previous ones. “This is the principle of open legal policy. The Constitutional Court will change its stance if [the case] is elaborated clearly and strongly with convincing arguments,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Constitutional Justice Ridwan Mansyur talked about the requirement to argue constitutional impairment and the Petitioner’s concern and unwillingness to vote for unqualified regional heads. “This is good and there is a quote on the constitutional impairment, but there has been no connection to the Petitioner’s legal standing. The impairment must be explained—whether specific, actual, or potential—not only a claim,” he said.

Next, Constitutional Justice Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh (panel chair) advised the Petitioner to present the age requirements for regional heads in other countries. “Please revise the petitums to follow the standards in the Constitutional Court’s regulation,” he said.

Before adjourning the hearing, Justice Foekh announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition and submit it by Monday, October 14, 2024 at 15:00 WIB to the Registrar’s Office, after which a subsequent hearing will be scheduled after notifying the Petitioner.

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR              : Tiara Agustina
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.

---