Constitutional Court Judge Saldi Isra Highlights Non-consistent Presidential-Cawapres Age Limit Decision: I'm Really Confused

Constitutional Court Judge Saldi Isra/DOK ANTARA

The four judges of the Constitutional Court (MK) revealed that the dissenting opinion or dissent was different in the results of the decision on the presidential and vice presidential age limit in the case numbered 90/PUU-XXI/2023 submitted by a student from Surakarta named Almas Tsaibbirru Re A.

In this case, the Constitutional Court partially granted a lawsuit regarding the age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates aged at least 40 years or experienced as regional heads, both at the provincial and district/city levels.

In other words, regional heads under the age of 40 can now become presidential and vice-presidential candidates. One of the Constitutional Court judges who expressed his dissenting opinion, Saldi Isra admitted that he was confused by the decision.

"Regarding the new meaning of the norm of Article 169 letter q of Law 7/2017, I am confused and really confused about where to start this dissenting opinion," said Saldi Isra in the Court Building courtroom, Monday, October 16.

Saldi Isra emphasized that this decision was inconsistent with a number of previous decisions rejected by the Constitutional Court this afternoon. Among them are case number 29/PUU-XXI/2023 submitted by PSI by asking for the minimum age limit for presidential and vice-presidential candidates to be reduced to 35 years.

Then case number 51/PUU-XXI/2023 proposed by the Garuda Party which asks for additional experience alternatives as state administrators as a condition in addition to the minimum age of 40 years. Then, case number 55/PUU-XXI/2023, proposed by the Mayor of Bukittinggi Erman Safar et al with the same petitum as Garuda.

"Since stepping foot as a Constitutional Justice in this Court building on April 11, 2017, or about six and a half years ago, this is the first time I have experienced an 'extraordinary''strange' event and can be said to be far from reasonable reasoning limits: the Court has changed its stance and attitude only in a secular manner," said Saldi Isra.

Apart from Saldi Isra, Constitutional Justices who have dissenting opinions are Wahiduddin Adams, Arief Hidayat, and Suhartoyo.

Then, the five judges who agreed that the case would be granted were Anwar Usman, Manahan Sitompul, Enny Nurbaningsih, Daniel Yusmic, and Guntur Hamzah. Of the five, two judges at the Constitutional Court presented different reasons or concurring opinions.

For information, the following is the Constitutional Court's decision on case number 90/PUU-XXI/2023:

1. Granted the applicant's application in part.

2. State Article 169 letter q of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections (State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia of 2017 Number 182, Supplement to the State Gazette of the Republic of Indonesia Number 610 which states, 'the lowest 40 (fourty) years old' is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. In 1945 and does not have binding legal force, as long as it is not interpreted as 'the lowest age is 40 years or has been / is in office elected through general elections including regional head elections'. So Article 169 letter q of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections reads 'the lowest age is 40 years or has been / is in office chosen through general elections or regional head elections'.

3. Order the strengthening of this decision in the State of the Republic of Indonesia news properly.