Advocate Bahrul Ilmi Yakup delivering the key points of the petition at the preliminary hearing for the judicial review of the Election Law, Wednesday (8/27/2025). Photo by MKRI/Ilham W.M.

---

JAKARTA (MKRI) — Advocates Bahrul Ilmi Yakup, Iwan Kurniawan, Yuseva, and Rio Adhitya have once again filed a material judicial review petition of Article 169 letter q of Law No. 7 of 2017 on General Elections to the Constitutional Court (MK). The preliminary hearing for case No. 146/PUU-XXIII/2025 took place on Wednesday, August 27, 2025 in a panel courtroom.

Before Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra (panel chair) and Constitutional Justices Ridwan Mansyur and Asrul Sani, the Petitioners contended that the article had been ruled conditionally constitutional by the Court through Decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023.

The Petitioners claimed that the challenged provision caused them constitutional harm by depriving them of the right to have vice-presidential candidates who are mentally and physically capable of performing the duties of office. They argued that vice-presidential candidates must possess sufficient cognitive, affective, and psychomotor abilities, as well as a clear vision. Moreover, they should have proven track records, honesty, and integrity beyond reproach.

“[We ask that the Court] declare 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 reads, ‘Requirements that must be fulfilled by a Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidate are as follows: q. at least 40 (forty) years of age’ constitutional and legally binding,’” said Bahrul Ilmi delivering the petitum.

Justices’ Advice

In response, Justice Arsul Sani advised the Petitioners to carefully reconsider the wording of their petitum. “The petitum must be reformulated. The meaning must be consistent, so that the phrasing in the Constitutional Court’s regulation [can clearly indicate whether a provision] is unconstitutional or not under the 1945 Constitution, and whether it has binding legal force or not. Since this norm has previously been interpreted by the Court in a prior decision, the usual formula is ‘to declare Article so-and-so, insofar as it has been interpreted in Decision so-and-so, is inconsistent with the 1945 Constitution and has no binding legal force except insofar as it is interpreted as so-and-so.’ That way, the petitum refers back to the original provision. But in this case, if the petitum is formulated as it currently stands, the object of review no longer exists, because Article 169 letter q has already been subject to interpretation. [The petition] might be dismissed, since it has lost its legal object,” he explained.

At the end of the hearing, Deputy Chief Justice Saldi Isra announced that the Petitioner would have 14 days to revise the petition, which must be resubmitted no later than September 9 to the Registrar’s Office. The Court will then schedule the second hearing to examine the revisions to the petition.

Author         : Sri Pujianti
Editor          : N. Rosi
PR               : Fauzan F.
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.

---