Baleg Calls The Supreme Court's Decision More Explicit Than The Constitutional Court's Decision

Deputy Chairman of the Legislation Body (Baleg) of the House of Representatives Achmad Baidowi (ANTARA/Through Susthira K.)

JAKARTA - Deputy Chairman of the Legislation Body (Baleg) of the DPR Achmad Baidowi said that his party was more inclined to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court (MA) than the Constitutional Court (MK) as a legal norm in agreeing on the provisions of the minimum age limit for regional head candidates to run for regional elections because it was more explicit.

"On the basis of more explicit legal norms, we then have legal views, all factions, the majority of the factions agreed to choose what is clear which has been stated in the verdict," said Awiek, his nickname, met after the Working Committee Meeting (Panja) on the Pilkada Bill of the DPR Legislation Body reported by ANTARA, Wednesday, August 21.

He explained that the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court were two level legal institutions. However, he said that the Supreme Court's decision No.23 P/HUM/2024 clearly regulates the age requirements for regional head candidates.

"The Supreme Court has decided regarding the age clause clearly, explicitly confirming that the candidate for governor or deputy governor is 30 years old at the inauguration. That is the decision of the Supreme Court, and that is the law," he said.

Meanwhile, he said the Constitutional Court's decision Number 70/PUU-XXII/2024 rejected the change in the minimum age requirements for regional head candidates calculated at the inauguration of the elected candidate pair, as referred to the Supreme Court's decision.

"Yesterday the decision refused. Rejecting it does not mean canceling the existing article and not removing it, does not change the existing article. The article in the Pilkada Law is only called 30 years old, it is not stated when," he said.

On that basis, Awiek said that the decision was firmer by mentioning the age of 30 years accompanied by a time statement calculated since the inauguration, his party was chosen because it was considered capable of providing certainty.

"Well, the Constitutional Court's decision reads, friends can see for themselves. So that there is no balance, so that there is no deadlock, legal politics is needed to bridge this issue by revising the law which happens to have been proposed since November 2023," he said.

He also said that the Constitutional Court did not have the authority to formulate laws because it was under the authority of the DPR RI and the Government, including in terms of formulating the minimum age limit for regional head candidates to run for regional elections through the revision of the Pilkada Law.

"What is mandated by the constitution to form a law is the government and the DPR. The Constitutional Court is negative for legislation, so cancel or refuse. Not formulate norms. Formulate norms, make norms the task of legislators," he said.