Putri, Indah Kendiana (2024) Perbandingan Putusan Mahkamah Konstitusi RI tentang Persyaratan Batas Usia Calon Presiden dan Calon Wakil Presiden. Masters thesis, Universitas Islam Riau.

Text 231021036.pdf - Submitted Version Restricted to Registered users only Download (3MB) | Request a copy

Abstract

This thesis examines the Comparative Decision of the Constitutional Court on the Age Limit Requirements for Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates in testing the provisions of Article 169 letter (q) of Law Number 7 of 2017 concerning Elections. The main problem in this study is how to analyze the comparative decisions of the Constitutional Court judges in deciding cases Number 29 / PUU-XXI / 2023, Number 51 / PUU-XXI / 2023, Number 55 / PUU-XXI / 2023 with Number 90 / PUU-XXI / 2023 regarding the age limit requirements for presidential and vice presidential candidates and why there are differences in decisions by the Constitutional Court between cases Number 29 / PUU-XXI / 2023, Number 51 / PUU-XXI / 2023, Number 55 / PUU-XXI / 2023 and Number 90 / PUU-XXI / 2023 regarding the age limit requirements for presidential and vice presidential candidates. This study uses a normative legal research method, which is a method used in legal research conducted by examining library materials consisting of primary legal materials, secondary legal materials, and tertiary legal materials. From the results of the study, it can be concluded that, 1) In the Constitutional Court decisions No. 29/PUU-XXI/2023, No. 51/PUU-XXI/2023, No. 55/PUU-XXI/2023, the Court rejected the entire substance of the petition by stating that the regulation of age limits as a requirement for a position in government administration is an open legal policy of the legislators. However, in decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023, the Constitutional Court granted it in part by considering that Article 169 letter q of Law 7/2017 violates morality and rationality so that the Constitutional Court considered that it could override the open legal policy norm. However, there were 4 judges who rejected (dissenting opinion) on the grounds that the object was an open legal policy as previously decided. 2) In the Constitutional Court decisions No. 29/PUU-XXI/2023, No. 51/PUU-XXI/2023, No. 55/PUU-XXI/2023 was only attended by 8 judges with a composition of 6 judges rejecting and 2 judges granting (dissenting opinion), while in decision No. 90/PUU-XXI/2023 it was attended by 9 judges with a composition of 4 judges rejecting and 5 judges partially granting, but there were 2 judges with different reasons and inconsistent with the previous decision, namely constitutional justices Enny Nurbaningsih and Daniel Yusmic who argued that the applicant's argument which specifically outlined his experience as a regional head both at the provincial and district/city levels, with the requirement "having experience/experienced" was considered more relevant. This difference in the Constitutional Court's decision shows the inconsistency of several Constitutional Court judges in making decisions.

Actions (login required)

View Item