MK Values Cannot Determine The Age Limit Of Presidential And Vice Presidential Candidates, Potentially Dynamics Then Day

Illustration-(Photo: DOK ANTARA)

JAKARTA - The Constitutional Court (MK) rejected the request for a judicial review of Article 169 letter q of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections regarding the age limit for presidential candidates (candidates) and vice presidential candidates (cawapres) proposed by the Indonesian Solidarity Party (PSI). The verdict has case number 29/PUU-XXI/2023 which essentially asks for a presidential and vice presidential age clause from 40 years to a minimum of 35 years in this article. In one of his considerations, Judge MK Saldi Isra is of the view that his party cannot determine the minimum age of presidential and vice presidential candidates because they have the potential to cause problems in the future. "In this case, the Court cannot determine the minimum age limit for presidential and vice presidential candidates because of the possibility of dynamics in the future," said Saldi Isra when reading the verdict at the Constitutional Court Building, Monday, Central Jakarta, Monday, October 16. Then, if the presidential-vice presidential age threshold clause of at least 40 years in the Election Law is argued by the applicants to be contrary to morality, rationality, and injustice that is intolerant because it is discriminatory towards Indonesian citizens aged less than 40 years, then by bringing about the same logic in the reasonable reasoning limit, reducing it to 35 years of course can also be considered a form of moral violation, injustice and discrimination for citizens under 35 years of age, especially for citizens who already have the right to vote, namely Indonesian citizens who on voting day are even 17 years old or older, have married, or have already married. "In addition, if the Court determines it, the flexibility will be lost and can trigger the emergence of various applications related to the requirements for the minimum age of other public positions to the Constitutional Court," he continued.

Then, the court said that the norm of Article 169 letter q of Law 7/2017 as long as it did not mean "at least 35 years old" had not violated the right to equal standing in law and government, the right to recognition, guarantee, protection, and legal certainty as well as equal treatment before law, as well as the right to obtain equal opportunities in government as guaranteed in Article 27 paragraph (1) and Article 28D paragraph (1) and paragraph (3) of the 1945 Constitution. "Thus, the arguments of the petitioners are that there is no validity according to the law in its entirety," said Saldi Isra.