The Constitutional Court Rejects The Formile Test On The Age Requirements For Presidential And Vice Presidential Candidates, Denny Indrayana's Lawsuit

The trial for reading the verdict at the Constitutional Court (MK) building, Jakarta, Tuesday (16/1/2024). BETWEEN/Fath Putra Mulya.

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) has stated that it rejects the request for a formal review of Article 169 letter q of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning general elections (elections) as interpreted by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 concerning the terms of age for presidential candidates (candidates) and vice presidential candidates (cawapres).

The application for the formal test case was submitted by former Deputy Minister of Law and Human Rights Denny Indrayana and Professor of Constitutional Law at Gadjah Mada University (UGM) Zainal Arifin Mochtar.

"Trial: in the supervision, rejecting the petitioner's petition for provision; in the main petition, rejecting the main petition of the petitioners in its entirety," said Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court Suhartoyo when reading the verdict reported by ANTARA, Tuesday, January 16.

Denny Indrayana and Zainal Arifin Mochtar submitted a petition petition petition petition in a case registered with Number 145/PUU-XXI/2023.

In the provision, among others, the petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to state that the enactment of the provisions of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted by the Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023. Then, state that they have suspended the actions or policies related to the article in question.

Next, in the main petition, the petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to state that the formation of the article being sued does not meet the formal requirements based on Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning judicial power and is contrary to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia.

In addition, Denny and Zainal also asked the Constitutional Court to order the organizers of the 2024 presidential election to write off the election participants who registered based on the provisions of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law which means Constitutional Court Decision Number 90 or set an additional agenda specifically for election participants affected to propose replacement candidates.

However, according to the Constitutional Court, the request for provisions and the main application of Denny and Zainal was not legally justified in its entirety.

"The petition for the provisions of the petitioners is not justified according to the law; the main application of the petitioners is not legally justified in its entirety," Suhartoyo said reading the conclusion.

The petitioners argued that the norm of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law, which means that the Constitutional Court Decision Number 90 does not meet the formal requirements because there is a formality defect in the preparation and implementation of a norm.

Regarding the argument, the court emphasized that the Court did not recognize an illegal decision even though in the decision-making process it was proven that one of the judges who participated in deciding the case violated ethics.

"This did not immediately result in the decision being invalid or null and void," said Constitutional Justice M. Guntur Hamzah.

Furthermore, the petitioners argued that the Constitutional Court could carry out judicial activities and use progressive law as the main approach in adjudicating cases submitted. Against this argument, the Constitutional Court also rejected it.

"The petitioners' petition relates to Article 169 letter q of Law 7 of 2017 as interpreted by the Constitutional Court's Decision Number 90 does not contain formal flaws, so it does not conflict with the 1945 Constitution," said Guntur.

Regarding this decision, Constitutional Justices Arief Hidayat and Enny Nurbaningsih stated that they had different reasons (concurringopinion).