Legal Policy
Constitutional requirements for a presidential election candidacy are explicitly defined. Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia stipulates that “(1) Any candidate for President or Vice-President shall be a citizen of Indonesia since birth, shall never have acquired another citizenship by his/her own will, shall never have committed an act of treason against the State, and shall be mentally and physically capable of implementing the duties and obligations of President or Vice-President.” Meanwhile, Article 6, Paragraph 2, states, “(2) The requirements to become president or vice president shall be further regulated by law.”
Thus, should we refer to the Constitution, Article 6 Paragraph (2), in addition to Article 6 Paragraph (1), the legislator’s legal policy becomes the foundation for becoming a presidential candidate in an election, in accordance with the constitutional amendments included in the Comprehensive Text on Amendments to the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia concerning the background, discussion process, and results, 1999–2002 (General Secretariat and Registrar, Constitutional Court, 2010).
Discussion on an age range has indeed surfaced during amendments to the Constitution, such as when Hamdan Zoelva, spokesperson for the F-PBB, conveyed his faction’s proposal: “Then, regarding the conditions for the election of the President, we propose that the President and Vice President must be at least 40 years old at the time of nomination. The President and Vice President are subsequently Indonesian citizens through the second degree of kinship.”
On July 14, 2000, the PAH I synchronization plenary meeting was conducted, discussing Article 6 Paragraph (2) regarding the presidential election, when the meeting’s chairman, Jakob Tobing, posed a question: “Can we examine the (age) variants, then enact (the law) whichever one is chosen? Whether (it is enacted) directly or through MPR. The law concerns the age range and the ways (to enact the law).”
Eventually, amendments to the Constitution and the electoral system agreed not to regulate age or education requirements in the Constitution and left it to the legislators’ legal policies. If it involves the examination of Article 169 letters “d”, “n”, and “q”, the Constitutional Court’s decision would not be difficult to predict, while the candidate requirements beyond those stipulated by Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Constitution are a matter of legislative policy.
The Constitutional Court has confirmed this through Decisions No. 15/PUU-V/2007 and No. 58/ PUU-XVII/2019, whereas the 1945 Constitution does not specify a minimum age limit as a generally applicable criterion for all government positions or activities. There are no constitutional concerns regarding the age restriction, as according to the Court, this is entirely within the legislative authority. Similarly, the legislator suggested having authority concerning various age restrictions for certain positions or legal acts, due to differences in the character of the position or legal act. The Constitutional Court holds the authority to remind legislators that elections must adhere to the principles of free and fair elections as stipulated in Article 22E, Paragraph 1 of the Constitution.
Political parties, as the sole way of nominating presidential candidates in elections, must implement democratic selection in their internal democratic party practices. Political parties need to be consistently reminded to place members’ sovereignty through a participatory process, including a hierarchical and inclusive selection of internal party candidates (primary elections).
Read: Stop Selling Arms To Myanmar’s Military
Apart from the age issue, there are still numerous other concerns regarding presidential election campaigns. If presidential candidate nominations in political parties are determined by a small number of individuals through closed and elitist mechanisms, then any other issues, including age, will not matter and will only leave very little opportunity for the young generation to offer their best to the nation.
Let alone, the presidential threshold has left less space for cadres and potential candidates to move upward. The decision of the Constitutional Court should address these more fundamental issues, as its contribution is more practical in advancing Indonesia’s constitutional democracy.