JAKARTA (VOA) —
Case Number 102/PUU-XXI/2023 was filed by three Indonesian citizens (WNI) named Wiwit Ariyanto, Rahayu Fatika Sari, and Rio Saputro, who were represented by 98 advocates who were members of the ’98 Alliance Forum of Lawyers Guarding Democracy and Human Rights .
“‘Rejects the petitioners’ request for other than that,” said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Anwar Usman at the Decision/Decree Pronouncement Session at the Indonesian Constitutional Court Building, Jakarta, Monday.
The Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court (MK), Anwar Usman, chaired the hearing on the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the maximum age limit for presidential candidates on Monday (23/10) in Jakarta. (VOA/Indra Yoga)
The petitioners in that case submitted two main petitions. First, ask the Constitutional Court to declare that Article 169 letter q of the Election Law is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia as long as it is not interpreted as “a minimum age of 40 years and a maximum of 70 years in the election process.”
Second, invoking Article 169 letter d of the Election Law which stipulates additional norms as “never betraying the state, never committing a criminal act of corruption, not having a track record of committing serious human rights violations in the past, not being a person involved in and/or being part of the abduction of activists.” in 1998, not a person involved and/or a perpetrator of enforced disappearances, never committed a criminal act of genocide, not a person involved and/or a perpetrator of crimes against humanity and anti-democratic acts, as well as other serious crimes”
The atmosphere of the Constitutional Court (MK) decision hearing regarding the decision on the age limit for presidential candidates in the election, Monday (23/10) in Jakarta. (VOA/Indra Yoga)
Regarding the maximum age limit for presidential and vice presidential candidates being 70 years, the Constitutional Court concluded that the petition had lost its object, because Article 169 letter q of the Election Law had a new meaning as stated in the latest Constitutional Court decision on October 16 2023.
In its previous decision, the MK had decided that article 169 letter q did not violate the constitution as long as it was interpreted as “anyone who is under 40 years of age but has or is currently occupying public office elected through elections.” This means that the Constitutional Court maintains article 169 letter q without regulating the maximum age requirements for presidential and vice presidential candidates
Regarding criminal acts, the Constitutional Court considers that the types of criminal acts regulated in article 169 letter d cannot be proven only by conjecture or assumption. According to the Constitutional Court, other types of serious crimes regulated in the Election Law should be proven by court decisions that have permanent legal force.
The attorney for the plaintiff in the case, Anang Suindro, admitted that he was disappointed because the interruption he made when reading the decision was not responded to by the Constitutional Court judge.
He explained that his interruption was made to ask Chief Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman not to be involved in making decisions on the case because it was related to the terms of the presidential and vice presidential candidates.
The attorney for the plaintiff regarding the maximum age limit for presidential candidates, Anang Suindro (center) gave a press statement after the Constitutional Court decision hearing stating that his lawsuit was rejected, Monday (23/10). (VOA/Indra Yoga)
“We would like to ask the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Mr. Anwar Usman, not to be involved in making the decision on case number 102 which we submitted but which was not responded to properly. “That is one form of our disappointment,” said Anang.
Political Observer from Lingkar Civil Ray Rangkuti said that the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the maximum age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates and the requirement to never violate human rights was correct because this issue was the domain of the government and the DPR as legislators.
“So the Constitutional Court’s rejection shows us the oddity of the decision (case number) 90 regarding having served as regional head. Why is it difficult to accept? “Because it is positive that legislation should not be in the Constitutional Court,” said Ray. (fw/ab)