Minimum Age Requirements for Regional Head Candidates After Constitutional Court Decision No. 70/PUU-XXII/2024 and Supreme Court Decision No. 23 P/HUM/2024
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25139/lex.v4i2.10776Keywords:
Minimum Age Requirement, Regional Head Candidates, Constitutional and Supreme CourtAbstract
The purpose of this study is to understand, explain, and analyze the Ratio Legis of Constitutional Court Decision No. 70/PUU-XXI/2024 and Supreme Court Decision No. 23 P/HUM/2024 and the Juridical Implications of Constitutional Court Decision No. 70/PUU-XXI/2024 and Supreme Court Decision No. 23 P/HUM/2024 related to minimum age requirements for regional head candidates. This research method uses the normative juridical legal research method, using the statute approach and the conceptual approach. The results of this research are First, the Ratio Legis of the Constitutional Court Decision No. 70 / PUU-XXI / 2024, namely, the Constitutional Court considers in Decision Number 70 / PUU / XII / 2024 that Article 7 paragraph (2) letter e of Law 10/2016 has provided legal certainty. According to the Constitutional Court, the minimum age calculation for candidates for regional heads is still calculated from the “determination of the candidate pair” because both the historical approach and systematic approach continue to use the calculation since the “determination of the candidate pair.” While the Ratio Legis of the Supreme Court Decision No. 23 P/HUM/2024, the Supreme Court considers that the phrase “at least 30 years old for Governors and Deputy Governors and 25 years old for Regents and Deputy Regents” in PKPU No. 9 of 2020 is a form of inconsistency that can cause injustice to citizens and is also not by the principle of legal certainty; therefore, the Supreme Court changed the regulation and calculated the minimum age requirement for Regional Head Candidates starting from the “Inauguration of Candidate Pairs,” which was originally calculated from the “Determination of Candidate Pairs.” Secondly, the juridical implications of these two decisions are that there is a dualism of legal norms, or at least differences in interpretation, that have the potential to cause legal uncertainty and also uncertainty in the implementation of Pilkada. However, by using the principle of lex posterior derogat legi prior, the Supreme Court decision can be overruled.
References
Alfath, T. P. (2019). Eksekutabilitas Putusan Mahkamah Agung Terhadap Pencalonan Anggota Dewan Perwakilan Daerah. Jurnal Yudisial, 12(3), 287–303.
Asshiddiqie, J. (2020). Perihal Undang-Undang. Rajawali Pers.
Assidiqie, J., & Safaat, M. A. (2006). Teori Hans Kelsen Tentang Hukum. Sekretariat Jenderal dan Kepaniteraan Mahkamah Konstitusi.
BBC. (2024). DPR dan KPU Sepakat Jalankan Putusan MK Soal Ambang Batas Parlemen dan Syarat Batas Usia Calon Kepala Daerah. https://www.bbc.com/indonesia/articles/ckgwe5qpyzjo
DA, A. T. (2024). Baleg DPR Lebih Memilih Putusan MA Ketimbang MK Soal Batas Usia Calon Kepala Daerah. Hukum Online. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/baleg-dpr-lebih-memilih-putusan-ma-ketimbang-mk-soal-batas-usia-calon-kepala-daerah-lt66c5d09a26ad4/
Darmani, N. S. (2015). Kedudukan dan Wewenang Mahkamah Konstitusi dalam Sistem Hukum Ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Jurnal Pembaharuan Hukum, 2(2).
Fauzia, A., Hamdani, F., Rusdianto, R., & Mohamed, M. A. (2023). Implementation of the Omnibus Law Concept and Consolidated Texts: Amalgamation of the Common Law and Civil Law Legal Systems. Journal of Law and Legal Reform, 4(2).
Hamdani, F., Fauzia, A., & Putra, E. A. M. (2023). Penerapan Metode RIA dalam Pembentukan Perjanjian Internasional: Upaya Optimalisasi Keterlibatan Rakyat dalam Mewujudkan Negara Kesejahteraan. Jurnal Yuridis, 10(1), 45–65.
Hamdani, F., Zunnuraeni, Risnain, M., & Prawesthi, W. (2025). Meaningful Participation dalam Pengesahan Perjanjian Internasional: Perspektif Pembentukan Perundang-undangan. Kencana Prenada Media Group.
Helmi, M. I. (2019). Penyelesaian Satu Atap Perkara Judicial Review Di Mahkamah Konstitusi. Salam: Jurnal Sosial Dan Budaya Sar-I, 6(1), 97–112.
IJRS. (2024). Catatan IJRS terhadap Pemilihan Umum dan Pentingnya Kepastian Hukum. https://ijrs.or.id/2024/08/23/catatan-ijrs-terhadap-pemilihan-umum-dan-pentingnya kepastian-hukum/
Mas, M. (2019). Hukum Konstitusi dan Kelembagaan Negara (2nd ed.). Rajawali Pers.
MD, M. M. (2015). Titik Singgung Wewenang antara MA dan MK. Jurnal Hukum Dan Peradilan, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.4.1.2015
Rustam, Marlina, T., & Handoko, D. (2022). Sejarah Pembentukan Dan Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi Dalam Sistem Ketatanegaraan Indonesia. Jurnal Dimensi, 11(2).
Sirajuddin, & Ramadhan, F. (2019). Dualisme Pengujian Yang Berujung Tirani Keterwakilan : Kajian atas Putusan Mahkamah Agung No. 65/P/HUM/2018 dan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi No. 30/PUU-XVI/2018. Jurrnal Hukum Kenegaraan, 2(1), 1–20.
Sudarsono. (2017). Pengujian Peraturan Perundang-undangan Di Bawah Undang-Undang Oleh Mahkamah Agung. Jurnal Mimbar Yustitia, 1(2), 147–169.
Suroso, F. L. (2021). Inkonstitusional Bersyarat dan Mengapa MK Memodifikasi Putusan? Hukum Online. https://www.hukumonline.com/berita/a/inkonstitusional-bersyarat-lt61c929b89241c/
Wahid, A., Hamdani, F., & Fauzia, A. (2024). Pengujian Undang-Undang: Mengurai Konsep Judicial Review & Judicial Preview. Alfabeta.
Wiryono, S. (2025). Jumlah Putusan Pengujian UU di MK Tahun 2024 terbanyak sepanjang sejarah. https://nasional.kompas.com/read/2025/01/02/11072331/jumlah-putusan-pengujian-uu-di-mk-tahun-2024-terbanyak-sepanjang-sejarah
Yunaldi, W. (2018). Judicial Review Satu Atap Peraturan Perundang-undangan Di Bawah Kewenangan Mahkamah Konstitusi. Pagaruyuang Law Journal, 1(2), 198–219.
