The difference in the age of children under Law 35/2014 on Children with Law 7/2017 on General Elections and Law 11 on Political Parties was questioned by the Association for Elections and Democracy (Perludem).
The rule in question, namely regarding the phrase 17 years or ever married at the time of the Draft Law (RUU) which is now Law 7 of 2017. However, this was ignored and the regulation continued.
Perludem researcher Usep Hasan Sadikin explained that previously there was a civil society version of the law in which the minimum voting age was 18 years old, not 17 years old and removed the provisions or had been married. There is a spirit to protect children from child marriage and the government does not adjust political maturity with marriage.
"The existence of provisions or having been married, means that the Election Law and Pilkada Law justify the practice of child marriage. Because with the meaning of children who have married, they have political rights, in this case the right to vote is said to be maturity, so it is out of the spirit of Child Protection. Yes, we consistently refuse," he told RMOLJabar News Agency, Saturday (8/7).
From Bill to Judicial Review, Voter Age Does Not Change
Apart from proposing a bill by removing the provision of having been married and raising the voting age to 18 years which failed, Usep explained, Perludem also conducted a judicial review when Law 7 of 2017 concerning Elections was passed by the Constitutional Court to remove the phrase having been married as a requirement to become a voter.
Because with this provision, Perludem considers that elections are like justifying the practice of child marriage because it means that children who have married become politically mature.
"So why did Perludem remove these provisions, because that way we also know that child marriage is rejecting child protection. This is included in crimes against children because it marries immature person, and violates the spirit of Child Protection. Unfortunately, the Constitutional Court judges did not agree with Perludem's judicial review and it was rejected," he added.
According to the Constitutional Court, said Usep, there was a dissenting opinion from Professor Maria at the time. In general, judges have an understanding that married citizens are adults, so they can vote.
"Why should it be disputed, they said, so the analogy is that they are only able to marry, let alone vote. That is the misguided thinking of the judges that we must deplore, which is not in favor of the spirit of child protection," he concluded. []
SYAMSUL ARIFIN
This article originally published by rmoljabar.id on July 8, 2023, with the support of the RESPECT Program hosted by Perludem.
