"Quo Vadis" Constitutional Court?

Constitutional judge Saldi Isra was surprised and ended his "dissenting opinion" with the question, "Quo vadis of the Constitutional Court?"

The following article was translated using both Microsoft Azure Open AI and Google Translation AI. The original article can be found in "Quo Vadis" Mahkamah Konstitusi?

KOMPAS/KURNIA YUNITA RAHAYU

The Constitutional Court received more than 300 lawsuits related to the disputed results of the general election on Friday (24/5/2019). To accelerate the settlement of these cases, the court formed three judge panels.

"Quo vadis Constitutional Court?"

This question was not asked by a figure from outside the Constitutional Court Building, but came from Constitutional Justice Saldi Isra. The Deputy Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court felt irritated and anxious about the attitudes and views of some constitutional judges who he considered trapped themselves in a political maelstrom by granting one of the requests for a judicial review of the minimum age limit for presidential and vice presidential candidates.

In 12.5 dissenting opinions or different opinions, Saldi examines the MK's internal process in making decisions on testing the minimum age requirements for presidential and vice-presidential candidates as regulated in Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections.

Of the 13 cases regarding the challenge of Article 169 letter q of the Election Law on the minimum age requirement for presidential and vice presidential candidates of 40 years that were received by the Constitutional Court, seven were decided on Monday (October 16, 2023). Five cases were rejected, one was withdrawn, and only one petition was partially granted by the court. Please note that the words "PKS" and "PPP" in this article should not be translated.

KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO

Chairman of the Constitutional Court, Anwar Usman (right), and Constitutional Court Judge Saldi Isra (left) briefly discussed during a session on the decision of the material test for Article 169 letter q of the General Election Law regarding the minimum age limit for presidential candidates (capres) and vice presidential candidates (cawapres) at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta, Monday (16/10/2023).

The cases rejected by the MK included applications submitted by the Indonesian Solidarity Party (29/PUU-XXI/2023), the Garuda Party (51/2023), and five regional heads (55/2023). The Constitutional Court refused to change the age requirement to 35 years or exclude people who have served as state administrators from the provisions of Article 169 Letter q of the Election Law. The reason is that the issue of the age of the presidential and vice presidential candidates is within the authority of the DPR and the president to regulate it (open legal policy). These three decisions were read out on Monday morning at around 10.30.

A few hours later, the stance of the Constitutional Court (MK) changed. Saldi Isra even said that MK's view had changed 180 degrees. MK granted the request submitted by Almas Tsaqibbirru Re A (Case 90/2023), a student of Surakarta University and an admirer of Surakarta Mayor Gibran Rakabuming Raka.

Marked by dissenting opinions from four constitutional judges, the Constitutional Court granted Almas' request by changing the article to "Be at least 40 years old or have/are currently serving in positions elected through general elections, including regional head elections."

I am confused and truly perplexed as to where to start with these differing opinions.

Four constitutional judges who expressed differing opinions are Saldi Isra, Arief Hidayat, Wahiduddin Adams, and Suhartoyo.

Strange event

Saldi began reading the dissenting opinion by expressing his confusion over the MK decision which granted part of Almas' request. “I am confused and really confused about where to start with these different opinions. Because, since setting foot as a constitutional judge on April 11 2017, this is the first time I have experienced a strange, extraordinary event that could be said to be far from the limits of reasonable reasoning. "The court changed its attitude and stance in just an instant," he said.

In a matter of days, the composition of constitutional judges changed, especially after Anwar Usman joined the Judges' Consultative Meeting (RPH). The six judges who rejected PSI et al's case for reasons of open legal policy were reduced to just four people. In fact, in case 90-91/2023, the considerations and verdict turned 180 degrees. The decision was from refusing to granting, even though the addition of partially granting was added.

Also read: Even though it's not been 40 years, the Constitutional Court allows regional heads to run for presidential and vice presidential candidates

Since the beginning, Almas's request has been deemed peculiar. Almas's case was entered without notifying the journalists, as is usually done by several applicants. Not only that, Almas previously withdrew the request on Friday (29/9/2023), but on Saturday (30/9/2023) night, she cancelled the cancellation letter of the case request.

KOMPAS/RONY ARIYANTO NUGROHO

The empty chair of the Chief Justice of the Constitutional Court, Anwar Usman (center), who left the courtroom when Constitutional Court judge Saldi Isra (left) read his dissenting opinion (different opinion) at the Constitutional Court, Jakarta, Monday (16/10/2023 ).

According to Arief Hidayat, applicants cannot re-submit revoked applications. The Constitutional Court's decision to reject the revocation letter is already sufficient grounds, as the applicant is deemed not serious.

Another anomaly is the scheduling of sessions that take too long. Scheduling a session with an agenda of listening to statements from the DPR and the President, for example, takes up to two months. Although it does not violate procedural law, the delay postpones the delivery of justice itself.

Also read: Testing Age Material for Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates from Students Rolling Hot Balls

Apart from all that, Arief admitted that he felt a negative cosmology and oddity in the five cases (29, 51, 55, 90, and 91/PUU-XXI/2023) which disturbed his conscience. In that context, Arief and Saldi Isra seemed to release what they had buried in their dissenting opinion.