2023-12-12 16:45:16
The minimum REQUIREMENTS for presidential and vice presidential candidates in Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (Election Law) have been challenged again at the Constitutional Court (MK). This time, the plaintiff is a prosecutor and constitutional law observer from Gadjah Mada University (UGM) Jovi Andrea Bachtiar. He and a legal consultant and constitutional law observer at the University of Riau Alfin Julian Nanda (Petitioner II) challenged the provisions regarding the minimum age requirements to become a presidential or vice presidential candidate (cawapres candidate) in that article. The Petitioners said that Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted by the Constitutional Court in Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution. If this continues, it could reduce public confidence in the Constitutional Court and will not provide legal certainty in the holding of the 2024 presidential and vice presidential elections and will be very vulnerable to disputes over the election results. “Regardless of the status of an individual prosecutor as an Indonesian citizen, Petitioner I has the right to vote in general elections and has the legal standing to submit an a quo petition,” said the Petitioner’s attorney Welly Anggara at the preliminary hearing on Tuesday (12/12). Also read: 51.45% of the public does not agree with Constitutional Court Decision Number 90. The plaintiffs ask for a postponement of the election. In their provisions, the Petitioners ask the Constitutional Court to declare that Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman is prohibited from participating in examining, adjudicating and deciding on this petition because there is a conflict of interest. The Petitioners also asked the Constitutional Court to order the General Election Commission (KPU) due to force majeure conditions resulting from violations of legal principles regulated in Article 17 paragraph (4) of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power by Anwar Usman, to postpone the implementation of the presidential election until it is issued. final decision on this application and followed up with KPU Regulations for the sake of legal certainty. In addition, the Petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to order the KPU due to force majeure conditions to restart from the beginning of holding the presidential election starting from the registration of presidential and vice presidential candidates for the sake of legal certainty and as an effort to prevent ongoing legal problems from the aspect of constitutional law. Meanwhile, in their petitum, the Petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to declare Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted in Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 to mean ‘be at least 40 years old or have completed a minimum of one full term as a state official. who are elected through general elections including regional head elections.’ The Constitutional Court considers that the petition’s arguments are nothing new. The Panel of Judges hearing Case Number 156/PUU-XXI/2023 asked the Petitioners to read Decision Number 141/PUU-XXI/2023 which was pronounced on November 29 2023. According to Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, some of the arguments submitted by the Petitioners have been answered or considered by the constitutional judges because they have the same substance. Arief, who is also the head of the panel of judges, said that the Petitioners could submit new and different arguments from Case Number 141/PUU-XXI/2023 which had already been decided. The Petitioners can revise the petition or withdraw the petition and submit a new petition, but the constitutional judge still returns it to the Petitioners. “If you still submit the application, it means you have to change the entire application because what is being challenged is not Article 169 letter q, not what has been interpreted in Decision 90, but what has been interpreted in Decision 141. That is actually all that has been considered in Decision 141, “So now it has changed, but it was implemented for the purposes of 2029,” said Arief, who was accompanied by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh. Arief said that the Petitioners could choose to change the petition in its entirety or withdraw the petition. The Constitutional Court will accept the revised application no later than 27 December 2023 at 09.00 WIB. (Z-4)
The minimum REQUIREMENTS for presidential and vice presidential candidates in Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning General Elections (Election Law) have been challenged again at the Constitutional Court (MK). This time, the plaintiff is a prosecutor and constitutional law observer from Gadjah Mada University (UGM) Jovi Andrea Bachtiar.
He and a legal consultant and constitutional law observer at the University of Riau Alfin Julian Nanda (Petitioner II) challenged the provisions regarding the minimum age requirements to become a presidential or vice presidential candidate (cawapres candidate) in that article.
The Petitioners said that Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted by the Constitutional Court in Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 is contrary to the 1945 Constitution.
Also read: The Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the ages of presidential and vice-presidential candidates damages the state order
According to him, if this continues, it could reduce public trust in the Constitutional Court and will not provide legal certainty in the holding of the 2024 presidential and vice presidential elections and will be very vulnerable to disputes over the election results.
“Regardless of the status of an individual prosecutor as an Indonesian citizen, Petitioner I has the right to vote in general elections and has the legal standing to submit an a quo petition,” said the Petitioner’s attorney Welly Anggara at the preliminary hearing on Tuesday (12/12).
Also read: 51.45% of the public does not agree with Constitutional Court Decision Number 90
The plaintiff asked for a postponement of the election
In their provisions, the Petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to declare that Constitutional Justice Anwar Usman was prohibited from participating in examining, adjudicating and deciding on this petition because there was a conflict of interest.
The Petitioners also asked the Constitutional Court to order the General Election Commission (KPU) due to force majeure conditions resulting from violations of legal principles regulated in Article 17 paragraph (4) of Law Number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power by Anwar Usman, to postpone the implementation of the presidential election until it is issued. final decision on this application and followed up with KPU Regulations for the sake of legal certainty.
In addition, the Petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to order the KPU due to force majeure conditions to restart from the beginning of holding the presidential election starting from the registration of presidential and vice presidential candidates for the sake of legal certainty and as an effort to prevent ongoing legal problems from the aspect of constitutional law.
Meanwhile, in their petitum, the Petitioners asked the Constitutional Court to declare Article 169 letter q of the Election Law as interpreted in Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 to mean ‘be at least 40 years old or have completed a minimum of one full term as a state official. who are elected through general elections including regional head elections.’
MK considers that there is nothing new in the grounds of the application
The Panel of Judges hearing Case Number 156/PUU-XXI/2023 asked the Petitioners to read Decision Number 141/PUU-XXI/2023 which was pronounced on November 29 2023. According to Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat, some of the arguments submitted by the Petitioners have been answered or considered by the constitutional judges because they have the same substance.
Arief, who is also the head of the panel of judges, said that the Petitioners could submit new and different arguments from Case Number 141/PUU-XXI/2023 which had already been decided. The Petitioners can revise the petition or withdraw the petition and submit a new petition, but the constitutional judge still returns it to the Petitioners.
“If you still submit the application, it means you have to change the entire application because what is being challenged is not Article 169 letter q, not what has been interpreted in Decision 90, but what has been interpreted in Decision 141. That is actually all that has been considered in Decision 141, “So now it has changed, but it was implemented for the purposes of 2029,” said Arief, who was accompanied by Constitutional Justices Wahiduddin Adams and Daniel Yusmic P. Foekh.
Arief said that the Petitioners could choose to change the petition in its entirety or withdraw the petition. The Constitutional Court will accept the revised application no later than 27 December 2023 at 09.00 WIB. (Z-4)
#Minimum #Age #Requirements #Presidential #Vice #Presidential #Candidates #Tested #Constitutional #Court