Polemic Of The Presidential-Cawapres Age Limit Decision Potentially Used For Electoral Interests

Illustration-(Photo: DOK ANTARA)

JAKARTA - The decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) which allows regional heads not yet 40 years old to run as presidential and vice-presidential candidates is currently controversial. The Constitutional Court's decision is considered to be used by certain parties for electoral purposes. "It is very possible for parties to try to withdraw this into the political realm for the sake of short-term electoral politics," political observer Bawono Kumoro told reporters, Sunday, November 5. Bawono views that the Constitutional Court's decision on the age limit of presidential and vice-presidential candidates which resulted in the Constitutional Court judges being reported for alleged ethical violations has the potential to degrade Prabowo Gibran's partner. "The issue of the Constitutional Court's decision regarding the age limit for presidential and vice presidential candidates currently appears to be a kind of tool to degrade Prabowo Subianto-Gibran Rakabuming Raka's partner," he said. Bawono does not deny that if the issue develops in society, it will disrupt political stability, considering that so far the Constitutional Court is an institution that guarantees the constitutional rights of every people whose decisions are final and binding. Some time ago, Gerindra Party Spokesperson for Human Rights and the Constitution, Munafrizal Manan, said that there was no clear legal basis regarding the discourse on the Constitutional Court's decision regarding the age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates to at least 40 years or experience being regional heads was canceled. Munafrizal said the Constitutional Court was a first and last-degree judicial institution whose decisions were final and binding. Therefore, he said, there is no legal effort that can judge the Constitutional Court's decision as invalid, then cancel it. "The discourse regarding the Constitutional Court's decision is invalid, then it can be canceled and has no solid legal basis," said Munafrizal in an official statement received in Jakarta, Friday, October 27, which was confiscated by Antara. Article 17 paragraph (5) and (6) of the Law on Judicial Power which requires judges to resign if they have direct or indirect interests with cases being investigated, according to him, it is difficult to use the legal basis for canceling the Constitutional Court's decision. Hal tersebut, lanjut dia, karena ada bentrak norm hukum antara ketentuan hukum yang lebih tinggi dan yang lebih rendah. He emphasized that the legal basis for the Constitutional Court's decision is final, namely the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia which is hierarchically higher than the Law on Judicial Power. "You can't and the law can't be lower to annul higher law," he said.

In addition, he said, there were no provisions governing the procedures and mechanisms for re-examination of cases that had been decided and canceled the Constitutional Court's decision. "The provisions of Article 17 paragraph (5) and (6) of the Law on Judicial Power in Concreto can only be implemented for judicial institutions within the Supreme Court whose decision properties do not participate in the final because there is a graded institutional hierarchy (first, appeal, cassation, and review)," he explained.