Supreme Court Decision On Regional Head Age Requirements, Observer: Not Ethical

Illustration - General Election Commission (Photo: Special)

JAKARTA Election law observer from the University of Indonesia Titi Anggraini assessed that the Supreme Court (MA) Decision No. 23 P/HUM/2024 which was enforced in the 2024 Pilkada was very unethical.

This is considering that the pilkada stage has started or is currently underway.

"The Supreme Court's decision cannot be applied in the 2024 Pilkada. Because, the nomination stage has taken place with individual candidates who have submitted support requirements, and administrative verification is being carried out," he said, Sunday, June 2.

He explained that the evidence that the 2024 Pilkada stages had been running was that the terms of support for individual candidates had been submitted.

Thus, the series of individual pathway nomination processes is carried out with the implementation of age requirements that still use the provisions of the lowest age of 30 years for cagub or cawagub, and 25 years for candidates in districts or cities.

Constitutional Law Expert Refly Harun added that the KPU as the organizer of the regional elections could ignore the Supreme Court's Decision based on Law Number 10 of 2016 concerning the Election of Governors, Regents, and Mayors.

"If we look at the law as clear, to nominate and nominate, not to be inducted. Therefore, if for example the KPU is based on the law, he can ignore the Supreme Court's decision because his benchmark is law," he said.

Refly emphasized that the rules contained in the PKPU are also clear that the age of 30 years has been in effect since the determination of the candidate pair.

"So if, for example, PKPU is considered excessive, then the excess is 30 years old since it was determined as a candidate. So since it was determined as a candidate, it can be crossed out, then return to the 30-year-old law since nominating or being nominated," he said.

According to him, if the minimum age rule of 30 years applies when the couple is inaugurated, then this has no legal basis.

"So we have to use logic, nominating each other is different, right? Since nominating it since carrying the file and receiving the file, it looks like it is 30 years old or not. If since it was inaugurated, we have no legal certainty," added Refly.