Lawyer Challenges Age Limit for Ad Hoc Judges at Constitutional Court: "Age Does Not Always Reflect Integrity"

The Constitutional Court (MK) has received a judicial review petition against the experience and minimum age requirements for prospective ad hoc judges at the Corruption Crimes Court. The petitioner is Rusiadi Waginopoyang, a lawyer who feels blocked by the norms in Law Number 46 of 2009 on the Corruption Court (UU Tipikor).

In the preliminary examination hearing of case Number 346/PUU-XXIV/2026 on Monday (28/9/2026), Rusiadi challenged Article 12 letters d and e. The article requires at least 15 years of legal experience for ad hoc judges at the Corruption Court and high courts, and 20 years for ad hoc judges at the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, letter e sets a minimum age of 40 for the Corruption Court and high courts, and 50 for the Supreme Court.

Rusiadi, who is currently 37 years old, failed at the administrative selection stage. He considers the requirement to prevent him from being assessed on the basis of capacity, integrity, and substantive legal competence. "Biological age does not correlate linearly with integrity or legal understanding," he said in the hearing.

The petitioner's legal counsel, Mursid Ar Rahman, asserted that the age restriction forces his client to postpone his constitutional right for the next three years. "Yet at 37 the Petitioner is at the peak of his productive period and has a legal understanding that is adaptive to the modus operandi of modern corruption crimes and money laundering," said Mursid.

Rusiadi also compared the requirement with provisions in other judiciaries. Ad hoc human rights judges must be at least 35 years old, ad hoc Industrial Relations judges 30 years, and prospective career judges in general courts 25 years. This difference is seen as creating a disparity without a clear basis of legal rationality and contradicting the guarantee of equality and the prohibition of discrimination in the 1945 Constitution.

In his petitum, Rusiadi asks the MK to declare Article 12 letters d and e of UU Tipikor unconstitutional and conditionally without binding legal force. He requests that the phrase experience in the legal field be interpreted as at least two years, and the minimum age as 35.

This petition highlights the issue of regeneration in the corruption judiciary. If the MK grants it, the age and experience thresholds will drop drastically, opening opportunities for younger legal professionals to occupy ad hoc judge positions. Conversely, if rejected, the old requirements remain in force and the potential discrimination experienced by the petitioner remains unresolved.

For the Indonesian public, especially lawyers and legal academics, this case is a test for the MK in balancing the need for competence with the principle of non-discrimination. The upcoming ruling will also affect the quality of handling corruption cases that have long been in the spotlight. Will the MK open the door for the younger generation, or maintain high standards deemed obstructive? The answer will be awaited soon.