Constitutional Justice Arief Hidayat

Justice Arief Hidayat in the Constitutional Court (MK) decisions Number 91/PUU-XXI/2023 and Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023 took several stances and decisions. Here is a summary of the decisions taken by Justice Arief Hidayat in the two cases:
  1. Justice Arief Hidayat expressed an opinion that was not in line with the majority of MK judges regarding the minimum age requirement to become a Presidential Candidate and a Vice-Presidential Candidate. He argued that determining this minimum age requirement is a simple matter and is an open legal policy, the regulation of which is left to the lawmakers. This means that, in his opinion, the MK should not adjudicate and interfere in determining the minimum age to become a Presidential Candidate and a Vice-Presidential Candidate.
  2. Justice Arief Hidayat also mentioned that the minimum age requirements for positions or government activities vary according to the characteristics of the needs of each position. He argued that the 1945 Constitution does not stipulate a general minimum age limit for all positions or government activities, and therefore, this is a policy that can be regulated by law.
  3. Justice Arief Hidayat criticized the actions of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court who participated in discussing this case after previously not participating in the discussion of the previous case. He considered this action to be beyond acceptable reason.
  4. Justice Arief Hidayat also noted a change in attitude from the party submitting the application regarding the withdrawal and cancellation of the withdrawal of the case. This was considered strange and unreasonable.
Thus, Justice Arief Hidayat basically argued that the Constitutional Court should not interfere in determining the minimum age requirement to become a Presidential Candidate and a Vice Presidential Candidate, and that this is a policy that should be left to the lawmakers. This opinion is a dissenting opinion in the Constitutional Court's decision.

Constitutional Justice Suhartoyo

The dissenting opinion expressed by Justice Suhartoyo, Constitutional Justice, is as follows:
  1. In Decision Number 90/PUU-XXI/2023, Suhartoyo expressed a dissenting opinion regarding the applicant who requested that the norm of Article 169 letter q of Law 7/2017 be interpreted. This opinion is related to previous decisions in Case Number 29/PUU-XXI/2023 and Case Number 51/PUU-XXI/2023.
  2. In his opinion in Case Number 29/PUU-XXI/2023 and Case Number 51/PUU-XXI/2023, Suhartoyo has refused to grant legal standing to the Applicants on the grounds that they are not legal subjects who have a direct interest in running as president and vice president. Therefore, according to him, the Applicant is not relevant to apply for the interpretation of the norm of Article 169 letter q of Law 7/2017 for the benefit of other parties.
  3. Suhartoyo emphasized that the requirements to become a candidate President and candidate Vice President are inherent in the legal subject concerned. This requirement cannot be linked to other requirements, such as the nomination procedure regulated in Article 6A paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution, the procedures for determining, proposing, and stipulating as regulated in Article 221 and Article 222 of Law 7/2017.
  4. Suhartoyo argued that the existing provisions indicate that the philosophy and essence intended in the norm of Article 169 of Law 7/2017 only apply to private legal subjects who want to run as presidential and vice presidential candidates. Therefore, people who are not legal subjects for the nomination cannot question the constitutionality of the norm of Article 169 of Law 7/2017.
  5. Suhartoyo also argued that the Applicant's application in Case Number 29/PUU-XXI/2023, which requested that the norm of Article 169 letter q of Law 7/2017 be interpreted for the benefit of other parties, did not meet the formal requirements. Therefore, the Applicant does not have legal standing in the application.
  6. In conclusion, Suhartoyo stated that the Constitutional Court should not grant legal standing to the Applicant in the a quo application and stated that the Applicant's application could not be accepted.
This opinion underlines the constitutional judge's view of legal standing and understanding of the requirements to become a presidential and vice presidential candidate in accordance with applicable regulations.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this text reflect the Author's personal understanding and cannot be considered as an official representation of the constitutional judge or the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. To understand and refer to the official views contained in the official decision, we strongly recommend reading the decision document which can be downloaded via the following link:Link ke Putusan MKRI
The author is not responsible for the interpretation or use of the information in this text, and we encourage readers to refer directly to the official judgment documents for a more accurate and comprehensive understanding.