Legal Literacy- This article discusses the DissentingOpinionof the Constitutional Court Decision by Constitutional Justices Saldi Isra, Wahiduddin Adams, Arief Hidayat, and Suhartoyo, related to the Constitutional Court's decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 regarding Article 169 of Law 7/2017. Learn about the debate surrounding the requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates through this article.

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra

Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra provided a dissenting opinion on the Constitutional Court Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 regarding the interpretation of the norm in Article 169 letter q of Law 7/2017. He expressed his rejection of the petition (dissenting opinion) and stated that the Court should have rejected the petition. Saldi Isra also provided a more detailed understanding of how the Constitutional Court's decision-making process relates to this norm, including changes in the composition of the Justices involved in related cases. He also outlined the differences of opinion among the Justices in the Constitutional Court, particularly regarding the interpretation of the norm in Article 169 letter q of Law 7/2017. Some Justices interpreted this norm differently, especially in terms of what can be considered a "position elected through general elections including regional head elections." Saldi Isra also discussed how the petitioner in Case Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 only requested that the norm be interpreted by taking into account experience as a regional head, and he doubted whether the Court should have decided so far in supporting a different interpretation. Furthermore, he described how the Justices who had different views reached an agreement on the position of governor as an equivalent to the age limit of 40 years. However, he also stated that some Justices still maintained the principle"opened legal policy" indetermining the criteria for the position of governor that can be equated with a minimum age of 40 years. Saldi Isra also tried to illustrate the common view of the five Justices who "partially granted" the petition by using a Venn diagram, which shows that their agreement was only on the position of governor. He argued that the a quo decision should only include the position of governor and not other positions elected through general elections. Finally, he noted that the discussion in the Judges' Deliberation Meeting (RPH) included a debate regarding the dictum, and some proposed postponing the discussion until a clear decision could be made. However, some Justices seemed to be in a hurry to make a decision.