Gerindra Values Discourse On 40 Year Old Candidate Decision Canceled Not Based On Law

Spokesperson for the Gerindra Party for Human Rights and the Constitution, Munafrizal Manan, said that there was no clear legal basis regarding the discourse on the decision of the Constitutional Court (MK) 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.

He said there were no provisions in the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia Law, the Constitutional Court Law, or the Constitutional Court Regulation on Certificates in the Law Testing Case at the Constitutional Court which regulates procedures and mechanisms for re-examination and re-DEcision of cases that have been decided.

Therefore, he assessed that the debate that arose among the public regarding the Constitutional Court's decision showed the need for internal improvement of the Constitutional Court, namely by perfecting the procedural law and governance in handling cases that were clearer and more assertive.

"So that something like that doesn't happen again and when it happens again, there are solutive provisions to solve it," he added.

According to him, the Constitutional Court also needs to make standard guidelines regarding the implementation of judicial activities (judicial activities) and judicial restrictions (judicial restrictions) as a sign for constitutional judges to maintain the consistency of all decisions of the Constitutional Court and constitutional certainty.

Previously, the Constitutional Court granted part of Case Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 submitted by a student who is an Indonesian citizen (WNI) named Almas Tsaqibbirru Re A. on Monday, October 16.

In his lawsuit, Almas requested the nomination requirements for presidential election participants at least 40 years old or experienced as regional heads, both at the provincial and district and city levels.

The verdict became controversial because it was considered full of conflicts of interest. Reports from the public who suspected that there was a violation of the constitutional judge's code of ethics in examining and deciding the case then appeared.

On that basis, the Honorary Council of the Constitutional Court (MKMK) was formed which had started a clarification meeting on Thursday, October 26.

According to him, the pros and cons of a case decision decided by a judicial institution are normal because there are parties who are satisfied and dissatisfied.

In the context of the Constitutional Court's decision, he acknowledged that the original nature of the Constitutional Court's authority, including the authority to review the law, is closely related to the political dimension.

"People's assessment of the Constitutional Court's decision will be influenced by the tendency of perceptions, preferences, and political interests of people who judge it," he said.

However, Munafrizal believes that the constitutional judge has independence in deciding every case.

Therefore, he said that reports of alleged ethical violations of constitutional judges must be based on strong evidence.

"Reports of alleged ethical violations against constitutional judges must of course be based on strong evidence, and it is hoped that the Constitutional Court's decision will not cause new noise," he said.