Rumah Pemilu Indonesia Election Portal
Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) and the Indonesian Center for Law & Policy Studies (PSHK) assess that the Supreme Court’s (MA) decision regarding the age limit for regional head candidates calculated at the time of inauguration is problematic because tinkering with candidacy rules is too close to the 2024 Pilkada. It is profitable for President Joko Widodo’s dynasty to nominate Kaesang Pangarep, who will turn 30 years old in December, as a candidate.
“Thus, like the Constitutional Court Decision No. 90 yesterday, which enabled Gibran to contest in the 2024 elections, this decision also provides the red carpet for the further expansion of the tentacles of President Jokowi’s dynasty through the candidacy of Kaesang Pangarep,” stressed ICW and PSHK in a press release (1/6).
They consider that the provisions regarding minimum age requirements are part of the administrative requirements that must be fulfilled during the registration period. The provisions of Article 4 paragraph (1) letter d PKPU 9/2020, which regulate the minimum age limit starting from the determination of candidate pairs, are considered appropriate and in accordance with the essence of PKPU. Other similar provisions regarding the age limit for nominating legislative members are also regulated when determining the Permanent Candidate List (DCT) or before the election takes place.
Apart from that, the Supreme Court’s decision is also considered odd because it forces judicial activism in the form of intervening in the KPU’s authority to form regulations without adequate justification. The Supreme Court provides an interpretation of provisions that do not cause violations of human rights or create legal vacuums or overlapping regulations.
“It is reasonable to suspect that this Supreme Court decision is a form of influence trading between the Garuda Party as the applicant for the judicial review and the party supporting Prabowo-Gibran in the 2024 elections and President Joko Widodo or Prabowo Subianto,” he explained.
ICW and PSHK urge the judicial commission to supervise and check the decision and the Supreme Court judge who made it. They also asked the General Election Commission (KPU) to refuse to comply with Supreme Court decision Number 23 P/HUM/2024 because there was no adequate legal basis. []
